F-111 with AA missile?
rb
http://www.f-111.net/images/Red-Flag-2002_files/C0227611.jpg
Now that missile on the F-111 is presumably an asraam or sidewinder, no?
Is that merely a prop or for real?
I know the designation F is meant for fighter, but as far as I knew,
that has never been a role for aussie F-111s (or any F-111 for that matter).
cheers
rb
Thom
if you look on the tail you'll see its one of the Australian F-111c's
which was delivered with the AIM-9 missile pods. My memory is a bit
cloudy but the tail is either No 1 or No 6 SQD and the base looks like
Amberley.
THOM
MickB
exercise in the USA, using a Sidewinder.
The Enlightenment
intercepted by the F-16.
The F111s are grounded now.
The compound used to seal the tanks repeatedly to keep them flying has
killed and is killing multiple maintaince personal with horrid wasting
diseases. It's a scandal in Australia. Most of the poor bastards are
in their mid 40s when they should be enjoying their accomplishments.
A couple have dealt with the side effects with suicide.
I don't know why they keep using these shitty chemicals in aircraft.
John S. Shinal
>Now that missile on the F-111 is presumably an asraam or sidewinder, no?
>Is that merely a prop or for real?
No, that's the real business. For Red Flag exercises, it's
just a captive missile (no motor, no warhead) with an active seeker.
Shots are broadcast over the ACMI radio pod the aircraft all carry,
and scored using the electronic range out there in Nevada.
US units flying F-111s generally had rules that forbid hard
maneuvering to engage fighters, but if someone wandered into their
field of fire, they'd take the shot.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim Yanik
news:427bce95....@News-East.newsfeeds.com:
> rb wrote:
>
>>Now that missile on the F-111 is presumably an asraam or sidewinder,
>>no? Is that merely a prop or for real?
>
> No, that's the real business. For Red Flag exercises, it's
> just a captive missile (no motor, no warhead) with an active seeker.
> Shots are broadcast over the ACMI radio pod the aircraft all carry,
> and scored using the electronic range out there in Nevada.
>
> US units flying F-111s generally had rules that forbid hard
> maneuvering to engage fighters, but if someone wandered into their
> field of fire, they'd take the shot.
I suppose the F-111 could be useful as a long range interceptor.
You would want AAMs for that role.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
renab...@aol.com
SNIP
I think you'd be surprised at the number of toxic/carcinogenetic/
corrosive/insert evil quality here chemicals used in our high tech
manufacturing. Talk to someone who works in computer chip or board
manufacturing for instance...
Anyway, here is the official RAAF press release
Steven P. McNicoll
"rb" <sna...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:d59u8s$e7g$2...@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
>
> Just stumbled across this
> http://www.f-111.net/images/Red-Flag-2002_files/C0227611.jpg
>
> Now that missile on the F-111 is presumably an asraam or sidewinder, no?
>
It's a Sidewinder. The AMRAAM looks more like a smaller Sparrow as they
both have their forward surfaces near the middle of their airframes.
>
> Is that merely a prop or for real?
>
Not a prop but probably not quite real either. If this image was taken at
Red Flag it's probably lacking motor and warhead for use on the ACMI range.
>
> I know the designation F is meant for fighter, but as far as I knew, that
> has never been a role for aussie F-111s (or any F-111 for that matter).
>
Although rarely carried, the F-111A/C/D/E/F had the capability of carrying
the AIM-9 on stations 3,4,5, and 6. Experiments were conducted with a
weapons bay trapeze launcher on an early F-111A but was not adopted.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:42787ea1...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>
> if you look on the tail you'll see its one of the Australian F-111c's
> which was delivered with the AIM-9 missile pods. My memory is a bit
> cloudy but the tail is either No 1 or No 6 SQD and the base looks like
> Amberley.
>
The right nose wheel door has 109 painted on it. This aircraft is A8-109,
the former USAF F-111A 67-109. The RAAF purchased four F-111As 1982 and
upgraded them to F-111C standards.
Steven P. McNicoll
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1115211092....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't know why they keep using these shitty chemicals in aircraft.
>
Perhaps because there aren't non-shitty alternative chemicals.
bfo...@hotmail.com
Jim Yanik wrote:
t.
>
> I suppose the F-111 could be useful as a long range interceptor.
> You would want AAMs for that role.
>
> --
Believe me they already tried to use it as a fighter (F-111B)
Unfortunately it didn't work out as planned until Grumman came up with
the idea of transfering the F-111b's engines, radar , missles and even
its swing-wing mechanism onto a more suitable fighter platform and the
rest is history
d.scottferrin
Google F-111B
Kurt R. Todoroff
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Although rarely carried, the F-111A/C/D/E/F had the capability of carrying
> the AIM-9 on stations 3,4,5, and 6. Experiments were conducted with a
> weapons bay trapeze launcher on an early F-111A but was not adopted.
The F-111A/C/D/E/F could physically hang AERO-3Bs on the inboard and
outboard shoulder locations of the four swivel stations 3, 4, 5, and 6.
However, the Dash One permitted AIM-9 / AERO-3B carriage only on the
outboard shoulders of pylons 3 and 6 (C/D/E/F) and both shoulders of
pylons 3 and 6 (A models). These were designated as stations 3A, 3B,
6A, and 6B.
The F-111D was the only Vark which could carry and employ the AIM-7
since its attack radar (AN/APQ-130), which was dissimilar to that in the
other Vark models (and was an older distant cousin to the AN/APG-63 in
the F-15A), was designed to support semi-active radar guided missiles.
I seem to remember that the D carried Sparrows under the MAU-12 pylon,
not on the shoulder stations.
The very short-lived F-111B carried its AIM-54 Phoenix missiles under
the MAU-12 pylons. The F-111B used the AN/AWG-9 radar which, with the
AIM-54, Grumman used in the F-14A Tomcat.
--
Kurt Todoroff
kurt.r....@comcast.net
Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not coercion.
Kevin Brooks
"Kurt R. Todoroff" <kurt.r....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kurt.r.todoroff-8D...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <vr6ee.3790$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Although rarely carried, the F-111A/C/D/E/F had the capability of
>> carrying
>> the AIM-9 on stations 3,4,5, and 6. Experiments were conducted with a
>> weapons bay trapeze launcher on an early F-111A but was not adopted.
>
> The F-111A/C/D/E/F could physically hang AERO-3Bs on the inboard and
> outboard shoulder locations of the four swivel stations 3, 4, 5, and 6.
> However, the Dash One permitted AIM-9 / AERO-3B carriage only on the
> outboard shoulders of pylons 3 and 6 (C/D/E/F) and both shoulders of
> pylons 3 and 6 (A models). These were designated as stations 3A, 3B,
> 6A, and 6B.
>
> The F-111D was the only Vark which could carry and employ the AIM-7
> since its attack radar (AN/APQ-130), which was dissimilar to that in the
> other Vark models (and was an older distant cousin to the AN/APG-63 in
> the F-15A), was designed to support semi-active radar guided missiles.
> I seem to remember that the D carried Sparrows under the MAU-12 pylon,
> not on the shoulder stations.
Sure of that? The AIM-7G model was to be developed to arm the F-111D, but
AFAICT it never made it out of the development cycle (or off the paper
stage). I have never seen anything that indicates the F-111D ever carried
any AIM-7's operationally.
Brooks
Steven P. McNicoll
"Kurt R. Todoroff" <kurt.r....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kurt.r.todoroff-8D...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> since its attack radar (AN/APQ-130), which was dissimilar to that in the
> other Vark models (and was an older distant cousin to the AN/APG-63 in
> the F-15A), was designed to support semi-active radar guided missiles.
> I seem to remember that the D carried Sparrows under the MAU-12 pylon,
> not on the shoulder stations.
>
I recall a version of the AIM-7 was in development for use by the F-111D,
but never got past the prototype stage.
Ron
although its not exactly something that was practiced as far as I know.
Vygg
Back in '85-86, when McFreak was 3AF/CC, he decided that since the Vark
had an "F" in it's designation it should be used as a fighter, too. We
got a handful of launchers and a dozen or so Sidewinders delivered to
Heyford with instructions to start loading them up so that the pilots
could practice. Didn't take long before we had to stop carrying the
things except for real-world situations - with those things stuck all
the way out there on stations 3A and 6B, TFR hard ride was Hell on the
seeker heads.
Vygg
Thom
<bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>The F111 was comming to the assistence of a Tornado that was being
>intercepted by the F-16.
>
>The F111s are grounded now.
yes and no. Theres 9 operational out of 40 and I'm not sure how many
RF-111's are in that. There is definately a problem with the sealant
in those tanks and theres some very ill airmen because of it.
THOM
Thom
that I knew but I can't remember which SQD the tail art indicates.
Any clue?
THOM
>
>
Jim Yanik
news:1115231529.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Interceptor does not = fighter.Especially the "long-range" part.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns964CC0F3761...@129.250.170.85...
>
> Interceptor does not = fighter.
>
Well, actually, it does. All interceptors are fighters, not all fighters
are interceptors.
Kevin Brooks
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XOcee.3961$7F4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Not sure I'd agree with that. Take the Yak-28 for example...
Brooks
>
>
Steven P. McNicoll
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nvudnTmdhta...@adelphia.com...
>
> Not sure I'd agree with that. Take the Yak-28 for example...
>
Example of what?
Jim Yanik
I suppose if the aircraft launches a AAM at another plane,that is
"fighting" or air combat.
How good a fighter is a Mig-25? It was designed to -intercept- B-70's,not
to do ACM with them.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I suppose if the aircraft launches a AAM at another plane,that is
> "fighting" or air combat.
>
> How good a fighter is a Mig-25? It was designed to -intercept- B-70's,not
> to do ACM with them.
>
"Fighter" is general, while "Interceptor" is specific. All interceptors are
fighters, but not all fighters are interceptors.
The first military use of aircraft was for reconnaissance, first by balloons
and then by airplanes. They were observation platforms; they reported on
enemy troop movements, gun positions, mapped defensive lines, located supply
depots, etc. The typical observation airplane of early World War 1 was a
two-seater, pilot and observer. Armament, if any, consisted of rifles and
handguns. Denying information to your enemy is just as vital as obtaining
it for yourself, so combat between observation airplanes did occur, but with
their limited weaponry it was rather ineffectual. Clearly, the occupants
needed something more effective than rifles and handguns. A machine gun was
the obvious solution, but with most early aircraft it was difficult enough
to raise a pilot and observer to a reasonable altitude without the added
weight of a machine gun and ammunition. The added weight rendered the
aircraft unable to reach higher flying enemy aircraft, something had to be
left behind. Since neither the pilot or machine gun could be eliminated,
the gunner/observer had to go. Fixed, forward-firing machine guns were
fitted to single-seat airplanes, the guns aimed by maneuvering the craft
itself. And thus the fighter, an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft,
was born.
During WW1 the British were subjected to aerial bombardment, by dirigible
and airplane, and the RAF remained concerned about stopping enemy bombers in
the postwar period. In 1925, an RAF fighter could climb to 20,000 feet in
24 minutes, but in that same time an enemy bomber could fly about 50 miles.
In an effort to reach the enemy sooner, the RAF developed a fighter
optimized for a high rate of climb. And thus the interceptor fighter was
born.
Dave Kearton
Hmmm what are your thoughts on Sidewinder-armed Nimrods ?
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Steven P. McNicoll
"Dave Kearton" <dkea...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:54fee.51$sb6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> Hmmm what are your thoughts on Sidewinder-armed Nimrods ?
>
About the same as machine gun-armed Flying Fortresses.
D. Scott Ferrin
Better yet I wonder how well the Tu-128 would dogfight :-)
Kurt R. Todoroff
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
> Sure of that? The AIM-7G model was to be developed to arm the F-111D, but
> AFAICT it never made it out of the development cycle (or off the paper
> stage).
Sure? Yep. Check again, Kevin. I'll defer to my Dash One, and also to
the USAF flight test movies (that we watched during RTU) that clearly
show a D launching a Sparrow. This occurred well after the idea and
paper stage.
> I have never seen anything that indicates the F-111D ever carried
> any AIM-7's operationally.
I never carried them, and I don't recall talking to any colleagues who
did either. Neither of which denies the flight testing that the USAF
conducted well after the talking stage and the paper stage. The USAF
tested other weapons on the Vark and cleared them for operational
carriage (as per the Dash One), yet no Vark ever carried them
operationally. The French Durendal (sp?) is one of several weapons that
comes to mind. This was (perhaps still is?) common at the time.
> Brooks
The CO
strike aircraft with a 'limited self defence capability'.
RAAF F111's could also carry a gun pod.
The CO
Steven P. McNicoll
"The CO" <the...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42798...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> RAAF F111's could also carry a gun pod.
>
A gun pod? The F-111 could carry a gun in the weapons bay, the gun itself
was semi-recessed in the right weapons bay door.
The CO
> I suppose if the aircraft launches a AAM at another plane,that is
> "fighting" or air combat.
The RAF Nimrod can carry AAM's, not to take on Migs, but supposedly to
take on enemy maritime patrol aircraft, such as the May.
Worlds largest fighter?
> How good a fighter is a Mig-25? It was designed to -intercept-
> B-70's,not to do ACM with them.
It evolved rather quickly to a high speed, high altitude recon version
so I'd say based on that, somewhat mediocre.
The design philosophy of the Foxbat was rather like the Mirage 3.
ie it was not a dogfighter, but a fast climb to altitude, make a fast
pass at the inbound and bolt for home before it ran out of gas aircraft,
in other words, an interceptor, not a fighter in the truest sense of the
word.
The lack of success of the Mirage against the Sea Harriers in the
Falklands is demonstrative of the situation, the much faster Mirage was
outclassed in ACM by the slower but much more agile Harrier. The
Argentinian pilots (mostly) failed to use their speed advantage to make
multiple fast passes at the Harriers instead electing to slow down and
try and dogfight them, an engagement scenario that heavily favoured the
Sea Harriers.
The CO
Ron
Ron
The CO
Yes, that's what I was told and the words 'gun pod' were used to
describe it. I agree that that name suggests a pylon or other external
mount.
The CO
leadfoot
> The lack of success of the Mirage against the Sea Harriers in the
> Falklands is demonstrative of the situation, the much faster Mirage was
> outclassed in ACM by the slower but much more agile Harrier. The
> Argentinian pilots (mostly) failed to use their speed advantage to make
> multiple fast passes at the Harriers instead electing to slow down and try
> and dogfight them, an engagement scenario that heavily favoured the Sea
> Harriers.
And the level of training of the argentinians vs the training of the
british?
>
> The CO
Jeroen Wenting
> >>> Interceptor does not = fighter.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, actually, it does. All interceptors are fighters, not all
fighters
> >> are interceptors.
> >
> >Not sure I'd agree with that. Take the Yak-28 for example...
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> Better yet I wonder how well the Tu-128 would dogfight :-)
Fighter != dogfighter :)
The CO
> And the level of training of the argentinians vs the training of the
> british?
Obviously a major factor, the Argentine pilots let themselves get sucked
into relatively low speed (for the Mirage) turning duels with an
aircraft that had a clear advantage in that situation. This was
doubtless a training issue, more competent pilots would not have taken
the bait and instead used their superior speed to make fast passes which
might have let them inflict some damage, at worst it would have made
them much harder targets.
The CO
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jeroen Wenting" <beef...@hornet.beefjerky.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:117jfup...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Fighter != dogfighter :)
>
Nope.
Lyle
wrote:
dont forget that the British were armed with Aim9L while the
Argentinians were armed with Aim-9B's.
d.scottferrin
What is a "fighter" in your book? If not a "dog fighter" or at least
have some ability in that area then what kind of fighter is it?
"Interceptor" is pretty easy to define- zip out to point A and attack
incoming aircraft in some way. All fighters can act as interceptors
to one degree or another but they are not interceptors *by design*.
The idea of arming the B-1 with 24 Phoenix missiles was kicked around
at one point and if so armed would it be considered operating in the
role of a fighter or an interceptor?
Don McIntyre
fighters getting sucked into turning combat with Zeros and Ki-43s.
Altho, this statement doesn't take into account that the Argentines
should have known better (your comment on training stand well here),
it's not like the Harrier was a big secret (compared to the "relative"
lack of knowledge/understanding of the Japanese fighters).
Also, with the Mirages & Daggers operating at or near the limits of
their combat radius couldn't have helped the situation.
Don McIntyre
Clarksville, TN
leadfoot
british had the Societ bloc as their main adversaries and the argentineans
had Chile.
Jim Yanik
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>>I suppose the F-111 could be useful as a long range interceptor.
>>>You would want AAMs for that role.
>>>
> An F111 nav with some 10 years in the type described it to me as a
> strike aircraft with a 'limited self defence capability'.
> RAAF F111's could also carry a gun pod.
>
> The CO
So maybe it should be a B-111?
The CO
Didn't help, trying to get rear aspect in the missile envelope on a
Harrier that's ducking and weaving from a hot jet that doesn't turn real
well must have been fighter pilot hell. And IIRC, the B was more easily
distracted by flares than the J or L.
The CO
The CO
ISTR FB111 being mentioned some years ago, not sure if it was in
connection with ours or the US 111s, but realistically it's a strike
aircraft. The best replacement for it (for our purposes) would be the
B One, but it's too rich for our blood....
Meantime, the Pigs still fly....
The CO
renab...@aol.com
SNIP
Or A-111...This was part of TAC trying to become a junior version of
SAC...previously, the F-101 and F-105 were both purchased as nuclear
strike aircraft but still called "fighters"
Ed Rasimus
>Or A-111...This was part of TAC trying to become a junior version of
>SAC...previously, the F-101 and F-105 were both purchased as nuclear
>strike aircraft but still called "fighters"
I don't know whether this requires a wooden stake through the heart or
a silver bullet.
There is no conspiracy. And, the inclusion of "TAC" in the argument
shows a basic misunderstanding of the role of TAC. It may seem strange
to most people who equate TAC with war-fighting, but that wasn't the
mission of TAC. It was to "organize, train, and equip" but not to
fight. TAC units were responsible for training people in the aircraft,
conducting operational tests and evaluations, developing tactics and
then preparing to deploy to the operational commands where they
underwent a change of "operational control"--i.e. "CHOP". They were
employed by commands like USAFE, PACAF, CENTCOM.
TAC didn't "buy" aircraft--that was done by AFSC and AFLC. Design and
requirements managed by Systems Command and purchase, acceptance and
delivery by Logistics Command.
The A versus F distinction in the '50s through '70s was strictly a
NAVY issue where they specialized in attack and fighter/interceptor
squadrons. The tactical forces of USAF were expected to do all of the
roles that an aircraft was capable of DESPITE the fact that an
aircraft might be optimized for a mission.
Tactical jets in the USAF were call fighters. We did air/air,
intercept, nuclear strike, ground attack and anything else the
aircraft was capable of.
And, as for the disparaging remark about the F-105, you might note
that it claimed more MiG gun kills than any other aircraft in the SEA
conflict. Sounds like a fighter to me.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Kevin Brooks
"Ron" <ms...@aol.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DFgee.5879$GQ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
That is what I read--and it apparently never made it beyond prototype stage
(if it ever made it that far). So I am scratching my head wondering what
version the D is supposed to have been cleared to actually carry?
Brooks
>
> Ron
Kevin Brooks
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Jpeee.4031$7F4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nvudnTmdhta...@adelphia.com...
>>
>> Not sure I'd agree with that. Take the Yak-28 for example...
>>
>
An interceptor, not a fighter. But you knew that...you are just pulling your
usual, "I can't really respond, so I'll ask coy questions" crap. Since that
is the case, argue with yourself--I have better things to do with my time.
Adios.
Brooks
>
>
renab...@aol.com
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 5 May 2005 10:24:25 -0700, renab...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Or A-111...This was part of TAC trying to become a junior version of
> >SAC...previously, the F-101 and F-105 were both purchased as nuclear
> >strike aircraft but still called "fighters"
>
> I don't know whether this requires a wooden stake through the heart
or
> a silver bullet.
>
> There is no conspiracy.
SNIP
Never said there was. What I said was the USAF tactical forces (which I
called "TAC", an admitted misnomer) were training for a nuclear strke
role and standing strip alerts as such.
And, the inclusion of "TAC" in the argument
> shows a basic misunderstanding of the role of TAC. It may seem
strange
> to most people who equate TAC with war-fighting, but that wasn't the
> mission of TAC. It was to "organize, train, and equip" but not to
> fight. TAC units were responsible for training people in the
aircraft,
> conducting operational tests and evaluations, developing tactics and
> then preparing to deploy to the operational commands where they
> underwent a change of "operational control"--i.e. "CHOP". They were
> employed by commands like USAFE, PACAF, CENTCOM.
>
> TAC didn't "buy" aircraft--that was done by AFSC and AFLC. Design and
> requirements managed by Systems Command and purchase, acceptance and
> delivery by Logistics Command.
SNIP
Which did so based on requirements developed by TAC
> The A versus F distinction in the '50s through '70s was strictly a
> NAVY issue where they specialized in attack and fighter/interceptor
> squadrons. The tactical forces of USAF were expected to do all of the
> roles that an aircraft was capable of DESPITE the fact that an
> aircraft might be optimized for a mission.
>
> Tactical jets in the USAF were call fighters. We did air/air,
> intercept, nuclear strike, ground attack and anything else the
> aircraft was capable of.
SNIP
Hate to disagree with you, but the tactical forces operated the B-57
and B-66 during the time period in question, as well as the A-26 and
A-1
> And, as for the disparaging remark about the F-105, you might note
> that it claimed more MiG gun kills than any other aircraft in the SEA
> conflict. Sounds like a fighter to me.
SNIP
I'm not disparaging the F-105, but it's primary mission was to drop
bombs, not conduct air to air combat.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf105.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-105.htm
Harry Andreas
(Thom) wrote:
> On 4 May 2005 05:51:32 -0700, "The Enlightenment"
> <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >The F111 was comming to the assistence of a Tornado that was being
> >intercepted by the F-16.
> >
> >The F111s are grounded now.
>
> yes and no. Theres 9 operational out of 40 and I'm not sure how many
> RF-111's are in that. There is definately a problem with the sealant
> in those tanks and theres some very ill airmen because of it.
>
> THOM
> >
> >The compound used to seal the tanks repeatedly to keep them flying has
> >killed and is killing multiple maintaince personal with horrid wasting
> >diseases. It's a scandal in Australia. Most of the poor bastards are
> >in their mid 40s when they should be enjoying their accomplishments.
> >A couple have dealt with the side effects with suicide.
> >
> >I don't know why they keep using these shitty chemicals in aircraft.
I haven't heard about this until now.
Can you give more details on what the "chemical" is?
Typically the airframers have used polysulfide sealants to seal the wing
tanks. It is great stuff: impervious to JP and gasoline, with a temp range
that covers the entire flight regime. We use it also for a lot of applications
as it's a good GP sealant, and we have not had any issues AFAIK.
I'm interested in knowing if it's the same stuff.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
FatKat
the F-111?
Thomas Schoene
Um, guys, hate to interupt, but this is all pretty much irrelevant. What
you're describing here simply didn't happen over the Falklands.
First of all, Argentine Mirages had Magic (and some R530s), not AIM-9B. The
cosmetically similar Daggers had only very ancient Shafrirs. There were
some AIM-9Bs on the Navy A-4s, but that's all.
In terms of air combat maneuvering, there really wasn't much. Certainly
there were no "turning duels"; there's no evidence of any combat going more
than a single turn, mostly with Argentine pilots still trying to find the
Sea Harriers or evade their missiles. The SHARs rarely made head-on
engagements, being vectored into aft-quarter intercepts by their firghter
controllers (and their own air intercept radars).
The Argentine Mirages in particular did very little fighting. On the first
day (1 May), they made a few sorties trying to draw th SHARs up to high
level where their acceleration woudl dominate the fight. But the Brits were
not playing that game, and the Mirages did not as a rule drop down to
engage. There were a couple of pointless front-quarter shots from the
Mirages, and that's it) After 1 May, the Mirages were absent from the
Falklands for several weeks, defending against a feared Black Buck-style
raid on the mainland. They came back again in June, but never closely
engaged Sea Harriers. Their best service was acting as decoys on 8 June,
sucking the CAP away from Fitzroy/Bluff Cove and setting up that successful
attack.
The Daggers flew a very few escort missions on 1 May, with the same lack of
dogfighting as the Mirages. After that, they stuck to hauling bombs, which
makes more sense given their total lack of air intercept radar.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
Thom
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
>news:Xns964CC0F3761...@129.250.170.85...
>>
>> Interceptor does not = fighter.
>>
>
>Well, actually, it does. All interceptors are fighters, not all fighters
>are interceptors.
I couldn't disagree more. Look at that piece of junk the F-102 and
what it should have been in the first place, the F-106. They are
nothing more than missile platforms for use against bombers. They had
no guns and limited menuverability compared to others. They took
losses during the VN War and no kills.
Lets look at the P-61 night interceptor. Would you dog fight with
that or the Boston (A-20) night fighter???
THOM
>
>
Thom
<dkea...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
>news:Xns964CD5E757A...@129.250.170.85
>| "Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>| news:XOcee.3961$7F4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>|
>||
>|| "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
>|| news:Xns964CC0F3761...@129.250.170.85...
>|||
>||| Interceptor does not = fighter.
>|||
>||
>|| Well, actually, it does. All interceptors are fighters, not all
>|| fighters are interceptors.
>||
>||
>|
>| I suppose if the aircraft launches a AAM at another plane,that is
>| "fighting" or air combat.
>|
>| How good a fighter is a Mig-25? It was designed to -intercept-
>| B-70's,not to do ACM with them.
>|
>| --
>| Jim Yanik
>
>
>
>Hmmm what are your thoughts on Sidewinder-armed Nimrods ?
lets put it up against a P-3 and take bets!
THOM
>
>
>
>--
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>
>
Thom
sorry but no. The 101 was a long range fighter escort and originally
assigned to SAC. That mission didn't last long partially because the
102 was not up to snuff and the 101 was reassigned to ADC.
THOM
Thom
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
>news:Xns964CD5E757A...@129.250.170.85...
>>
>> I suppose if the aircraft launches a AAM at another plane,that is
>> "fighting" or air combat.
>>
>> How good a fighter is a Mig-25? It was designed to -intercept- B-70's,not
>> to do ACM with them.
>>
>
>"Fighter" is general, while "Interceptor" is specific. All interceptors are
>fighters, but not all fighters are interceptors.
nope. Even the nazi's knew the difference. The HE-280 and HE-162
jets were classified as fighters and the ME-262 an interceptor whose
job it was to go after the bombers.
THOM
>
>The first military use of aircraft was for reconnaissance, first by balloons
>and then by airplanes. They were observation platforms; they reported on
>enemy troop movements, gun positions, mapped defensive lines, located supply
>depots, etc. The typical observation airplane of early World War 1 was a
>two-seater, pilot and observer. Armament, if any, consisted of rifles and
>handguns. Denying information to your enemy is just as vital as obtaining
>it for yourself, so combat between observation airplanes did occur, but with
>their limited weaponry it was rather ineffectual. Clearly, the occupants
>needed something more effective than rifles and handguns. A machine gun was
>the obvious solution, but with most early aircraft it was difficult enough
>to raise a pilot and observer to a reasonable altitude without the added
>weight of a machine gun and ammunition. The added weight rendered the
>aircraft unable to reach higher flying enemy aircraft, something had to be
>left behind. Since neither the pilot or machine gun could be eliminated,
>the gunner/observer had to go. Fixed, forward-firing machine guns were
>fitted to single-seat airplanes, the guns aimed by maneuvering the craft
>itself. And thus the fighter, an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft,
>was born.
>
>
>During WW1 the British were subjected to aerial bombardment, by dirigible
>and airplane, and the RAF remained concerned about stopping enemy bombers in
>the postwar period. In 1925, an RAF fighter could climb to 20,000 feet in
>24 minutes, but in that same time an enemy bomber could fly about 50 miles.
>In an effort to reach the enemy sooner, the RAF developed a fighter
>optimized for a high rate of climb. And thus the interceptor fighter was
>born.
>
>
Thom
Andreas) wrote:
>In article <427955b9...@news.melbpc.org.au>, toml...@melbpc.org.au
>(Thom) wrote:
>
>> On 4 May 2005 05:51:32 -0700, "The Enlightenment"
>> <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >The F111 was comming to the assistence of a Tornado that was being
>> >intercepted by the F-16.
>> >
>> >The F111s are grounded now.
>>
>> yes and no. Theres 9 operational out of 40 and I'm not sure how many
>> RF-111's are in that. There is definately a problem with the sealant
>> in those tanks and theres some very ill airmen because of it.
>>
>> THOM
>> >
>> >The compound used to seal the tanks repeatedly to keep them flying has
>> >killed and is killing multiple maintaince personal with horrid wasting
>> >diseases. It's a scandal in Australia. Most of the poor bastards are
>> >in their mid 40s when they should be enjoying their accomplishments.
>> >A couple have dealt with the side effects with suicide.
>> >
>> >I don't know why they keep using these shitty chemicals in aircraft.
>
>I haven't heard about this until now.
>Can you give more details on what the "chemical" is?
The deseal/resear stuff
www.defence.gov.au/raaf/organisation/ info_on/units/f111/Volume1.htm
Hope that answers your question
THOM
Ed Rasimus
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On 5 May 2005 10:24:25 -0700, renab...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >Or A-111...This was part of TAC trying to become a junior version of
>> >SAC...previously, the F-101 and F-105 were both purchased as nuclear
>> >strike aircraft but still called "fighters"
>>
>> I don't know whether this requires a wooden stake through the heart
>or
>> a silver bullet.
>>
>> There is no conspiracy.
>
>SNIP
>
>Never said there was. What I said was the USAF tactical forces (which I
>called "TAC", an admitted misnomer) were training for a nuclear strke
>role and standing strip alerts as such.
And my point was that during the period of the Century Series, there
was a lot more to the mission than nuclear strike. The airplanes were
doing air defense, fighter, ground attack, interdiction, CAS, etc. It
is a gross oversimplification to suggest that simply because they had
a design capability (and in some cases such as the F-105 were
INITIALLY designed for the strike mission) that was all they did.
>
>
>And, the inclusion of "TAC" in the argument
>> shows a basic misunderstanding of the role of TAC. It may seem
>strange
>> to most people who equate TAC with war-fighting, but that wasn't the
>> mission of TAC. It was to "organize, train, and equip" but not to
>> fight. TAC units were responsible for training people in the
>aircraft,
>> conducting operational tests and evaluations, developing tactics and
>> then preparing to deploy to the operational commands where they
>> underwent a change of "operational control"--i.e. "CHOP". They were
>> employed by commands like USAFE, PACAF, CENTCOM.
>>
>> TAC didn't "buy" aircraft--that was done by AFSC and AFLC. Design and
>> requirements managed by Systems Command and purchase, acceptance and
>> delivery by Logistics Command.
>
>SNIP
>
>Which did so based on requirements developed by TAC
The requirements were developed by Air Staff (also called HQ USAF)
which developed those requirements based upon threat assessment and
mission. TAC had minimal input.
>
>
>> The A versus F distinction in the '50s through '70s was strictly a
>> NAVY issue where they specialized in attack and fighter/interceptor
>> squadrons. The tactical forces of USAF were expected to do all of the
>> roles that an aircraft was capable of DESPITE the fact that an
>> aircraft might be optimized for a mission.
>>
>> Tactical jets in the USAF were call fighters. We did air/air,
>> intercept, nuclear strike, ground attack and anything else the
>> aircraft was capable of.
>
>SNIP
>
>Hate to disagree with you, but the tactical forces operated the B-57
>and B-66 during the time period in question, as well as the A-26 and
>A-1
Hate to disagree with you, but the B-57 was "operated" by PACAF in the
COIN role. The EB-66, a heavily modified B-66 was operated by PACAF in
the ECM business. The A-26 and A-1 were operated in the COIN mission,
but other than training, you won't find any TAC units "operating"
them. And, by 1970, the USAF was also operating the A-7 which was a
variant of a Navy designed aircraft.
My point remains that TAC and USAF didn't make an A or F distinction
in the manner that the USN did/does. You still won't find an AF guy
saying "I'm an attack pilot".
>
>
>> And, as for the disparaging remark about the F-105, you might note
>> that it claimed more MiG gun kills than any other aircraft in the SEA
>> conflict. Sounds like a fighter to me.
>
>SNIP
>
>I'm not disparaging the F-105, but it's primary mission was to drop
>bombs, not conduct air to air combat.
Regulars around here have previously seen me say, "air-to-air is
something a fighter pilot does on his way to and from the target".
Referencing me to a Chinese web page to tell me what an F-105's
mission was is a bit of "coals to Newcastle." Trust me, I'm intimately
familiar.
>
>http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf105.html
>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-105.htm
>
>http://jiatelin.jschina.com.cn/attacker/eng/f105.htm
Ed Rasimus
Mike Marron
[snipped for brevity]
>The A-26 and A-1 were operated in the COIN mission, but other than
>training, you won't find any TAC units "operating" them.
Could you elaborate on this, Ed? In addition to COIN, A-1's excelled
in the SAR, strike FAC, attack, and other missions as well, no? And if
they weren't operated by TAC, then who?
--
Mike Marron
http://stickandrudder1.blogspot.com/
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
under the relevant command. Example I was in the 50th FW in West
Germany. Despited having F-4Es we were not TAC we were USAFE. It would
have been similar in the pacific under PACAF. Permanently move the 50th
FW to Guam and it becomes a PCAF assett.
Please note the term FW instead of TFW. I was in the First Tactical
Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, VA. I was in the 50th Fighter wing in Germany.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Zamboni
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:427aa2ed...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>
>>"Fighter" is general, while "Interceptor" is specific. All interceptors
>>are
>>fighters, but not all fighters are interceptors.
>
> nope. Even the nazi's knew the difference. The HE-280 and HE-162
> jets were classified as fighters and the ME-262 an interceptor whose
> job it was to go after the bombers.
>
--
Zamboni
Thom
wrote:
they were dropping a few things off for der fuhrer. :-)
THOM
>--
>Zamboni
>
>
Thom
I remember that near our RB-57's there were some black 57's that (and
my memory is very shaky here) were part of "project 404" or something
like that? Am I wrong here?
THOM
Steven P. McNicoll
<D. Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
news:k66k719io34mmko5j...@4ax.com...
>
> What is a "fighter" in your book? If not a "dog fighter" or at least
> have some ability in that area then what kind of fighter is it?
> "Interceptor" is pretty easy to define- zip out to point A and attack
> incoming aircraft in some way. All fighters can act as interceptors
> to one degree or another but they are not interceptors *by design*.
> The idea of arming the B-1 with 24 Phoenix missiles was kicked around
> at one point and if so armed would it be considered operating in the
> role of a fighter or an interceptor?
>
"Fighter" is general, while "Interceptor" is specific. All interceptors are
fighters, but not all fighters are interceptors.
The first military use of aircraft was for reconnaissance, first by balloons
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> So maybe it should be a B-111?
>
Not B-111, but something on the order of B-72 would have been better.
d.scottferrin
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
><D. Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
>news:k66k719io34mmko5j...@4ax.com...
>>
>> What is a "fighter" in your book? If not a "dog fighter" or at least
>> have some ability in that area then what kind of fighter is it?
>> "Interceptor" is pretty easy to define- zip out to point A and attack
>> incoming aircraft in some way. All fighters can act as interceptors
>> to one degree or another but they are not interceptors *by design*.
>> The idea of arming the B-1 with 24 Phoenix missiles was kicked around
>> at one point and if so armed would it be considered operating in the
>> role of a fighter or an interceptor?
>>
>
>"Fighter" is general, while "Interceptor" is specific. All interceptors are
>fighters, but not all fighters are interceptors.
So in this instance you'd say the B-1 would be considered a
*fighter*???
Andreas Parsch
>
> "Fighter" is general, while "Interceptor" is specific. All interceptors are
> fighters, but not all fighters are interceptors.
>
The AL-1A "Airborne Laser" is an interceptor. Ok, it intercepts guided
missiles, and not manned aircraft, but anyway ... would you call it a
"fighter"?
Andreas
Steven P. McNicoll
<D. Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
>
> So in this instance you'd say the B-1 would be considered a *fighter*???
>
Of course.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Andreas Parsch" <apa...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:427B743E...@gmx.net...
>
> The AL-1A "Airborne Laser" is an interceptor. Ok, it intercepts guided
> missiles, and not manned aircraft, but anyway ... would you call it a
> "fighter"?
>
A fighter is defined as an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft. Does the
AL-1A fit that definition?
Steven P. McNicoll
"The CO" <the...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:427a4...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> ISTR FB111 being mentioned some years ago, not sure if it was in
> connection with ours or the US 111s, but realistically it's a strike
> aircraft.
>
The FB-111A was operational with SAC from 1971 to 1991. After they left SAC
some served with TAC as F-111Gs for a short time. Some of the F-111Gs were
then acquired by Australia.
Andreas Parsch
>
> A fighter is defined as an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft. Does the
> AL-1A fit that definition?
Defined by whom? Anyway, there are other definitions as well. E.g., in
its regulation for the aircraft designation system, the U.S. Dept. of
Defense defines a "Fighter" as "Aircraft modified to intercept and
destroy other aircraft or missiles."
So, according to (some parts of) DOD, the ABL is a fighter.
Andreas
Andreas Parsch
> E.g., in
> its regulation for the aircraft designation system, the U.S. Dept. of
> Defense defines a "Fighter" as "Aircraft modified to intercept and
> destroy other aircraft or missiles."
Sorry, forget that. The definition I wanted to quote was:
"Fighter = Aircraft designed to intercept and destroy other aircraft
or missiles. Includes multipurpose aircraft also designed for ground
support missions such as interdiction and close air support."
The point about "... aircraft or missiles ..." remains.
Andreas
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Defined by whom?
By history. See my other messages in this thread.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Sorry, forget that. The definition I wanted to quote was:
>
> "Fighter = Aircraft designed to intercept and destroy other aircraft or
> missiles. Includes multipurpose aircraft also designed for ground support
> missions such as interdiction and close air support."
>
> The point about "... aircraft or missiles ..." remains.
>
We seem to be in agreement.
Andreas Parsch
> "Andreas Parsch" <apa...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:427B79A9...@gmx.net...
>>"Fighter = Aircraft designed to intercept and destroy other aircraft or
>>missiles. Includes multipurpose aircraft also designed for ground support
>>missions such as interdiction and close air support."
>>
>>The point about "... aircraft or missiles ..." remains.
>>
> We seem to be in agreement.
Are we? You (or "history") defined a fighter as "an airplane for
destroying enemy aircraft". I thought you meant _manned_ aircraft
only. If you didn't make this implicit restriction, the DOD's
defintion does indeed agree with yours.
Andreas
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Are we? You (or "history") defined a fighter as "an airplane for
> destroying enemy aircraft". I thought you meant _manned_ aircraft only. If
> you didn't make this implicit restriction, the DOD's defintion does indeed
> agree with yours.
>
I never said manned aircraft and I don't think I implied it either. I
certainly consider the aircraft employed to intercept the V-1 in WWII to be
fighters doing a fighter's job.
Steven P. McNicoll
<renab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115313865.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Or A-111...
>
In that time frame the USAF did not use the A designation. As the Navy was
acquiring it as a true fighter their appropriate designation would have been
F3Y at the time they joined the project, but the Tri-Service system was in
use well before the first flight.
>
> This was part of TAC trying to become a junior version of
> SAC...previously, the F-101 and F-105 were both purchased as nuclear
> strike aircraft but still called "fighters".
>
F-101 development was initiated as a long-range escort fighter. F-105
development was initiated as an all-weather supersonic tactical
fighter-bomber.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aK-dnWrIc8g...@adelphia.com...
>
> An interceptor, not a fighter. But you knew that...you are just pulling
> your usual, "I can't really respond, so I'll ask coy questions" crap.
> Since that is the case, argue with yourself--I have better things to do
> with my time.
>
Are you saying that an interceptor is not an airplane for destroying enemy
aircraft?
Steven P. McNicoll
<renab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115326787....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Which did so based on requirements developed by TAC
>
Not necessarily. F-111 development was initiated by a USAFE requirement.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>>Ed Rasimus <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>[snipped for brevity]
>
>>The A-26 and A-1 were operated in the COIN mission, but other than
>>training, you won't find any TAC units "operating" them.
>
>Could you elaborate on this, Ed? In addition to COIN, A-1's excelled
>in the SAR, strike FAC, attack, and other missions as well, no? And if
>they weren't operated by TAC, then who?
COIN is the acronym for Counter-Insurgency, which is what the
low-level military assistance aspect of the SEA war was characterized.
These were the airplanes that did SAR, CAS, interdiction, recce, ECM,
etc. and were operated by Special Ops units, advisor groups, Air
America, Ravens, etc. etc. etc.
Nothing in SEA was operated by TAC. All aircraft operating under USAF
auspices in SEA were under the operational control of PACAF,
administered by 13AF and commanded by 7AF.
Training in those aircraft prior to deployment to PACAF operations was
conducted in the US by TAC.
TAC units when deployed as units to PACAF, USAFE, CENTCOM, et.al. have
a line of CHOP during the ocean crossing where operational command
shifts to the gaining command. Bottom line is TAC was not a
'war-fighting' command.
Do not ask me to expound on current command/control of Air Combat
Command. I'm well out of that loop.
Ed Rasimus
>On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:39:49 -0600, Ed Rasimus
><rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hate to disagree with you, but the B-57 was "operated" by PACAF in the
>>COIN role.
>
>I remember that near our RB-57's there were some black 57's that (and
>my memory is very shaky here) were part of "project 404" or something
>like that? Am I wrong here?
>
>THOM
Regretably you've never deigned to provide your background, so I don't
have a clue where you were.
Since the US operated B-57s at Bien Hoa, DaNang and Phan Rang,
deployed from Clark, I'll assume that one of those is the location.
Previously you've mentioned recce aircraft, but they were never based
at those locations.
Two squadrons operated the -57s, the 8th "Devil's Own Grim Reapers"
and the 13th "Doom Pussy". The 13th flew the first bombing missions
into North Vietnam. The "Doom" comes from Danang Officer's Open Mess.
Project 404 relates to the establishment of the Steve Canyon program
which sent FACs into Laos in what later became the Ravens. No relation
to B-57 operations.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
You say that like it's a matter of opinion.
>
> Look at that piece of junk the F-102 and
> what it should have been in the first place, the F-106. They are
> nothing more than missile platforms for use against bombers.
>
Which by definition makes them fighters.
>
> They had no guns and limited menuverability compared to others.
>
The Phantom II entered service without a gun and was less maneuverable than
many of it's contemporaries. Do you consider it a fighter?
>
> They took losses during the VN War and no kills.
>
The F-106 did not serve in Vietnam.
The F-102 was the primary interceptor in SEA for about eight years and a
total of fifteen were lost. Eight were operational losses, seven were due
to enemy action. Four to ground attacks at Da Nang and Bien Hoa, two to
AAA, and one to a MiG-21.
>
> Lets look at the P-61 night interceptor. Would you dog fight with
> that or the Boston (A-20) night fighter???
>
Actually, the P-61 was a surprisingly agile aircraft. The night fighter
variant of the Boston/A-20 was designated P-70 by the USAAF.
You're making the mistake of requiring agility to qualify as a fighter.
Again, a fighter is simply an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> nope. Even the nazi's knew the difference. The HE-280 and HE-162
> jets were classified as fighters and the ME-262 an interceptor whose
> job it was to go after the bombers.
>
"Interceptor" is to "fighter" as "helicopter" is to "aircraft".
Mike Marron
>>Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>Ed Rasimus <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>The A-26 and A-1 were operated in the COIN mission, but other than
>>>training, you won't find any TAC units "operating" them.
>>Could you elaborate on this, Ed? In addition to COIN, A-1's excelled
>>in the SAR, strike FAC, attack, and other missions as well, no? And if
>>they weren't operated by TAC, then who?
>COIN is the acronym for Counter-Insurgency, which is what the
>low-level military assistance aspect of the SEA war was characterized.
>These were the airplanes that did SAR, CAS, interdiction, recce, ECM,
>etc. and were operated by Special Ops units, advisor groups, Air
>America, Ravens, etc. etc. etc.
>Nothing in SEA was operated by TAC. All aircraft operating under USAF
>auspices in SEA were under the operational control of PACAF,
>administered by 13AF and commanded by 7AF.
>Training in those aircraft prior to deployment to PACAF operations was
>conducted in the US by TAC.
>TAC units when deployed as units to PACAF, USAFE, CENTCOM, et.al. have
>a line of CHOP during the ocean crossing where operational command
>shifts to the gaining command. Bottom line is TAC was not a
>'war-fighting' command.
After looking up the definition for "CHOP" it all makes a bit more
sense to me now. Thanks.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> sorry but no. The 101 was a long range fighter escort and originally
> assigned to SAC. That mission didn't last long partially because the
> 102 was not up to snuff and the 101 was reassigned to ADC.
>
The F-101 was never assigned to SAC. It was originally developed for SAC
use but SAC announced it was no longer interested in the project on
September 29, 1954, the same day the airplane made it's first flight. TAC
then stepped in to seek development of the aircraft as a fighter-bomber.
Parallel development as a photoreconnaissance platform was begun even
earlier, in January 1953. ADC ordered an interceptor variant of the F-101
in March 1955, three months before the delivery of the first F-102A.
d.scottferrin
Does the F-117?
Steven P. McNicoll
<D. Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
>
> Does the F-117?
>
No, the F-117 does not fit that definition. The F-117 is not a fighter.
Ed Rasimus
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You're making the mistake of requiring agility to qualify as a fighter.
>Again, a fighter is simply an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft.
>
Actually, you're oversimplifying and possibly chronologically
challenged in defining the mission. What was a "fighter" in WW II, an
interceptor during the Cold War, a "fighter" in the modern era and
whether or not an interceptor needs to be manned are all angels
dancing upon the head of a pin.
First, at various times a "fighter" could be defined as an exclusively
A/A platform, that creates a strong linkage with an interceptor. But,
at other times, a "fighter" is more often used in the A/G role while
still retaining significant self-defense capability.
How about this, although it is not an exclusive one-size-fits-all
definition. An interceptor is a defensive system optimized to protect
a local area. A fighter is an air superiority, or more recently air
dominance, system which is employed against enemy air defensive and
offensive forces to insure security of own forces and allow for high
levels of success in offensive operations.
Interceptors launch from home base to defend against attackers while
fighters engage in both defensive and offensive zones.
Today, I can't think of a single "interceptor" manned aircraft. The
term is increasingly being applied to counter-missile weapons such as
Patriot and anti-ballistic missile systems.
Ed Rasimus
As well as PACAF requirements. Again, it was a USAF requirement, not
particularly Euro-centric.
Initially called TFX, it was a program to build an all-weather,
long-range, state-of-the-technology, ground attack aircraft with some
self-defense A/A capability (this devolved to go fast and pray.)
Steven P. McNicoll
"Ed Rasimus" <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:sk3n71tbvg1il0a0v...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, you're oversimplifying and possibly chronologically
> challenged in defining the mission. What was a "fighter" in WW II, an
> interceptor during the Cold War, a "fighter" in the modern era and
> whether or not an interceptor needs to be manned are all angels
> dancing upon the head of a pin.
>
Actually, I'm not.
Ed Rasimus
Well, that explains it.
Mike Marron
>>Actually, I'm not.
>Well, that explains it.
LMAO!!
Jim Yanik
news:IRLee.4479$pe3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> You're making the mistake of requiring agility to qualify as a
> fighter. Again, a fighter is simply an airplane for destroying enemy
> aircraft.
>
>
Then why are folks saying the F-111 is not(or could not be)a fighter?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
Your own words;
"You're making the mistake of requiring agility to qualify as a fighter.
Again, a fighter is simply an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft. "
An interceptor's mission is to destroy bombers,presumably with missile or
gunfire.
The farther away,the better,as bombers could launch cruise missiles.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns964E7ECBF7E...@129.250.170.86...
>
> Then why are folks saying the F-111 is not(or could not be)a fighter?
>
Probably because the version meant for that purpose never entered service.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Your own words;
> "You're making the mistake of requiring agility to qualify as a fighter.
> Again, a fighter is simply an airplane for destroying enemy aircraft. "
>
> An interceptor's mission is to destroy bombers,presumably with missile or
> gunfire.
> The farther away,the better,as bombers could launch cruise missiles.
>
That's all correct. What's your point?
renab...@aol.com
Thom wrote:
> On 5 May 2005 10:24:25 -0700, renab...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Jim Yanik wrote:
> >> The CO <the...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> >news:42798...@news.iprimus.com.au:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Jim Yanik wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>I suppose the F-111 could be useful as a long range
interceptor.
> >> >>>You would want AAMs for that role.
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> > An F111 nav with some 10 years in the type described it to me as
a
> >> > strike aircraft with a 'limited self defence capability'.
> >> > RAAF F111's could also carry a gun pod.
> >> >
> >> > The CO
> >>
> >> So maybe it should be a B-111?
> >
> >SNIP
> >
> >Or A-111...This was part of TAC trying to become a junior version of
> >SAC...previously, the F-101 and F-105 were both purchased as nuclear
> >strike aircraft but still called "fighters"
>
> assigned to SAC.
SNIP
Sorry but no. The F-101 originated in a SAC requirement for a
long-range penetration fighter (ie: a jet powered P-51). Despite the
fact that SAC had tried once and failed with the McDonnell F-88, it
tried again with an updated aircraft. Eventually sanity prevailed and
everyone relaized that no single seat fighter was going to be able to
operte over the distances required.
SAC cancelled the program and TAC picked up the F-101A as a nuclear
strike aircraft. Still later, ADC had the twin seat F-101B developed as
an interceptor.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f88.htm
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f101a.htm
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f101b.htm
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f101_1.html
That mission didn't last long partially because the
> 102 was not up to snuff
SNIP
Which the reason that the USAF bought 875 F-102's versus 480 F-101B's
and despite the fact that the F-101B came into service after the F-102
(1959 vs 1956) it was phased out before the F-102 in 1971...
Specs
Aircraft F-101B F-102A
Speed (MPH) 1095 810
Range (Miles) 1755 1000
Missiles(AIM-4/26) 4 4
Rockets (2.75-in) N/A 24
Number 480 875
Cost ($K) 1819 1184
In Service 1959 1956
Retired 1971 1976
Considering that you could buy almost two F-102's for the price of one
F-101B and that not every mission needed the speed/range of the Voodoo,
the USAF decision was entirely logical. The two aircraft were
complementary, not rivals.
and the 101 was reassigned to ADC
SNIP
Nope, the F-101 was never "reassigned" to ADC. The F-101A/C tractical
aircraft were single seaters armed with four 20-mm guns. The F-101C was
a two seater with different radar and engines, no guns and a missile
armament.
The F-101A/C's were rebulit in the early Seventies to RF-101G/H
configuration.
renab...@aol.com
Thom wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:22:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Interceptor does not = fighter.
> >>
> >
> >Well, actually, it does. All interceptors are fighters, not all
fighters
> >are interceptors.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. Look at that piece of junk the F-102 and
> what it should have been in the first place, the F-106.
SNIP
So tell us, how many J-75 engines and MA-1 fire control systems were
available in 1956 when the F-102 went into service? What would you have
fielded in place of the F-106? It was accepted that the F-102 would be
an interim type between the F-86/F-89 generation and the "ultimate"
interceptor, which became the F-106. The alternative was to keep
subsonic aircraft in firet line service for what was judged to be an
unacceptable length of time.
By the way, the F-102 served the USAF for 20 years (1956-1976), not
what one would expect from a "piece of junk", while the F-106 served
for 29 (1959-1988)
They are
> nothing more than missile platforms for use against bombers. They
had
> no guns and limited menuverability compared to others. They took
> losses during the VN War and no kills.
SNIP
The F-102's were deployed to RVN to counter the threat of NVAF Il-28's.
When that did not materialize, some were sent north on CAP roles and
others used as attack aircraft in the south, both misuses of the
aircraft. This led to one air-to-air loss and several shot down by AA
fire.
Nothing inherently wrong with the aircraft, it was misappalied and, as
always in such cases, someone paid the penalty.
In terms of the F-106
"Despite austere funding, the Air Force in 1969 also endorsed most of
Sixshooter-an ADC project outlined in February 1967, after the F-106
had shown the speed and maneuverability for a fighter-to-fighter role.
Foremost among the Sixshooter F-106 modernization projects were the
addition of a 20 mm. gun (M-61), a lead computing gunsight, a clear
cockpit canopy, electronic countermeasures gear, and a RHAW device. The
Air Force spent $1.5 million for a Sixshooter "feasibility
demonstration" with generally satisfactory results, but eliminated the
ECCM improvements recommended by ADC. All other Sixshooter
modernization projects were approved, but technical as well as
financial difficulties slowed their progress."
All surviving F-106's got the Project Sixshooter update.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-106a.htm
renab...@aol.com
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 5 May 2005 13:59:47 -0700, renab...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
.
> >>
> >> Tactical jets in the USAF were called fighters. We did air/air,
> >> intercept, nuclear strike, ground attack and anything else the
> >> aircraft was capable of.
> >
> >SNIP
> >
> >Hate to disagree with you, but the tactical forces operated the B-57
> >and B-66 during the time period in question, as well as the A-26 and
> >A-1
>
> Hate to disagree with you, but the B-57 was "operated" by PACAF in
the
in
> the ECM business.
SNIP
Those weren't jet aircraft operating in a tactical role?
The A-26 and A-1 were operated in the COIN mission,
> but other than training, you won't find any TAC units "operating"
> them.
SNIP
Which is not what I wrote, I said "tactical forces" by which I meant
all the theater level air forces such as PACAF, USAFE, etc and to
sepcifically not include TAC.