# Did the F-108 or F-12 hold any real promise as operational interceptors?



## Conslaw (Jul 5, 2022)

The USAF had two serious Mach-3 interceptor programs, the North American F-108 and the Lockheed F-12 (prototypes flying as the YF-12A). Poth programs were cancelled before operational. If either type had become operational, how do you think the planes would have evolved?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2022)

Both aircraft were designed against a threat, which was later found out, did not exist, that being a large Soviet Bomber force. The YF-12 was offered to the USAF after the cancellation of the XF-108. It was big and fast but was only able to perform long range, high speed intercept missions. I consider the XF-108 a contemporary of the CF-105. On paper it would have been faster and had a greater range. In hindsight, neither aircraft were necessary as the Soviet Union never produced a huge bomber force and put most of their offensive nuclear capabilities in missiles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2022)

Wasn’t the F-15 designed for a non existent threat? The threat that existed until that MiG-25 visited Japan and the west got a good look at it?
It’s ironic to me as the Foxbat was designed to counter a nonexistent threat.


----------



## GTX (Jul 5, 2022)

What an operational F-108 might have looked like:

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Wasn’t the F-15 designed for a non existent threat? The threat that existed until that MiG-25 visited Japan and the west got a good look at it?
> It’s ironic to me as the Foxbat was designed to counter a nonexistent threat.


Yeas and no - the west thought the MiG-25 was a lot more capable but there was still a need for an air superiority fighter that can totally dominate any Soviet product in any environment to include "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) that may limit the aircraft from fully exploiting it's capabilities due to political situations (like Vietnam). The F-14, although a naval fighter, had the same situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 5, 2022)

Another possible operational F-108 image:

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 5, 2022)

If either had entered operational service I presume they would have ended up serving instead of the likes of F-106s, so in Air Defense Command / Aerospace Defense Command and Air National Guard units. I wonder if there would have been a chance of Candaian ones as well?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2022)

NAA sure makes 'em pretty.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2022)

GTX said:


> If either had entered operational service I presume they would have ended up serving instead of the likes of F-106s, so in Air Defense Command / Aerospace Defense Command and Air National Guard units. I wonder if there would have been a chance of Candaian ones as well?


Well the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jul 10, 2022)

The F-15 was also built not just to counter the MiG-25, but to "one-up" the MiG-23 Flogger.

Yes... we didn't just have "Foxbat Fright"... we also had "Frogger Fever"!

Many people _now_ compare the Flogger to the F-4 Phantom II as "near-equals save for avionics"- at the time we didn't understand just how behind the Soviets were in avionics, and considered the MiG-23 (first flight in 1967, just like the public showing of the MiG-25) to be _better_ than the F-4!

It is NEVER a good idea to deliberately go to war with equal equipment to your foe... you always try to show up with better and hope you can afford enough of them, and the Soviets were looking like they were going to build a lot of Floggers, so either we needed to put an improved F-4* back into production (bad idea) or come up with a new air-superiority fighter that was significantly better than the Flogger or F-4.

The F-X program that had started in 1965 as a F-100/etc replacement just got the USAF the A-7 (they had wanted something like the F-5E), and was extended in 1966 to produce an F-4 replacement. This was better than the MiG-23, but not quite good enough to counter what we in 1967 believed the MiG-25 to be, so a redefinition for an even better (and more-expensive) air-superiority aircraft was ordered.

So you see, the F-4 replacement program was already underway, boosted by the appearance of the MiG-23 - the MiG-25 was just the "final straw" to get Congress to approve the program.


* One possibility could have been McD/D's proposed F-4FVS (proposed to the USN in late 1965) - with a shoulder-mounted variable-sweep wing!
The USN obviously passed on that in favor of the F-14, for many similar reasons to the USAF's pushing for the F-15... but the primary mission & design choices of the F-14 and F-15 were too different for another joint buy.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 11, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> The F-15 was also built not just to counter the MiG-25, but to "one-up" the MiG-23 Flogger.
> 
> Yes... we didn't just have "Foxbat Fright"... we also had "Frogger Fever"!
> 
> ...


Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters. The Pentagon hated Boyd but capitulated to the facts. The primary difference between F-15 and F-16 was size dictated by Radar, as well as mission growth capability of F-15 over F-16

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 11, 2022)

GTX said:


> What an operational F-108 might have looked like:
> 
> View attachment 676319


At first glance I thought the USAF were thinking of buying the TSR2


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 11, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters. The Pentagon hated Boyd but capitulated to the facts. The primary difference between F-15 and F-16 was size dictated by Radar, as well as mission growth capability of F-15 over F-16



Especially in an era where missile locks still had relatively limited envelopes, maneuverability was very important. It still is today, in a knife-fight, but with modern, long-range all-aspect missiles, less so.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jul 11, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters. The Pentagon hated Boyd but capitulated to the facts. The primary difference between F-15 and F-16 was size dictated by Radar, as well as mission growth capability of F-15 over F-16


Interesting that somehow you think that the program that started first (1966), saw the selection of the winner first (1969), and produced a flying prototype first (1972) is somehow a "followup" program?

Yes, those are the dates for the F-15.

Here are the dates for the F-16:
Initiation of design concept studies: 1969 (F-15 final selection same year)
Creation of formal program for light-weight fighter: 1971 (5 years *after* F-15 program creation)
Selection of finalists for LWF flying prototypes: 1972 (F-15 first flight year)
First flights of YF-16 & YF-18: 1974 (F-15B delivery to USAF to establish training squadron)
Selection of winner: 1975
Production F-16A first flight: 1978 (F-15C & F-15D first flights)
First delivery to USAF: 1979 (F-15 first air-air "kill" in combat by IAF)

The "Fighter Mafia" did, during the 1965-68 period, succeed in getting the F-15 reduced in size and weight from its early concepts... but it was still considered "too big & expensive to buy in sufficient numbers" - *which only then resulted in the LWF program being created, leading to the F-16*!

The F-16 was a "mission-shrink" follow-on to the "full-capability" F-15!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Interesting that somehow you think that the program that started first (1966), saw the selection of the winner first (1969), and produced a flying prototype first (1972) is somehow a "followup" program?
> 
> Yes, those are the dates for the F-15.
> 
> ...


I stand corrected on F-15 start date.


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 14, 2022)

I think that both the F-108 and F-12 were based on not only trying to intercept the enemy bombers as far out as possible but also to have a second pass capability in case they missed the first time. It takes a very fast airplane to be going supersonic and then turn around and tail chase the bomber it failed to kill on the first try.

The F-12 would have used AIM-47 AAMs which were more or less an early Phoenix.

The F-108 was based on B-70 technology. The Revell kit of it was quite popular for a limited time but they only made one production run due to the cancellation. In those days Revell was located not too far from NAA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 3, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.


Ironic especially when the F-108 was actually better in a number of ways

Speed
XF-108A: Mach 3
CF-105: Somewhere between Mach 2-3
Verdict: F-108 could achieve a higher protracted speed

Range
XF-108A: ~1000 nm
CF-105: A few hundred
Verdict: F-108 has superior range (and at a superior speed to boot).

Maneuverability
XF-108A: 5.33 g @ 80% fuel-load (8g ultimate)
CF-105: 7g or 7.5g (I forgot) ultimate-rated at 47000 lb. (IIRC).
Verdict: F-108 had a higher load-factor.

Avionics
CF-105
Flight & Engine Controls
FBW on all control surfaces with integrated SAS (something that reminds me a bit of the F-16).
Safety mode which would limit g-load and attitude in the event of structural damage.
Mechanical bank-up on one hydraulic line in event of FBW failure.

Radar & FCS: The system was comparable to that used on the F-102A, F-101B, and F-106A designs from what I recall.

XF-108A
Flight & Engine Controls
Redundant mechanically-signaled hydraulic system (AFAIK)
Engine controls used an electrically-controlled analogue system.

Radar & FCS: AN/ASG-18
It was the largest radar designed for use aboard a fighter aircraft (40" radome).
It had a range that exceeded the F-102A, F-101B, and F-106A by a substantial margin.
It was a pulse-doppler radar which allowed it to remove objects that are moving at very low speed (50 kn. and below based on what was revealed in tests).
It was suspected of possessing sufficient processing power to track an ICBM in flight
This actually resulted in the AN/ASG-18 and the GAR-9/AIM-47 remaining in development after the XF-108 was cancelled
Test were done in 1962 with a modified B-58 (A/C 55-665) which remain unspecified.



Verdict
Flight & Engine Controls: CF-105 had more sophisticated flight-control systems; XF-108 had more sophisticated engine-control systems
Radar & FCS: XF-108 had superior radar.


Armament
CF-105
Air-to-Air
8 x AIM-4 Falcon
2-4 x AIR-2 Genie

Air-to-Ground
Up to 4000 lb. of ordinance


XF-108A
Air-to-Air: 3 x AIM-47

Verdict
Air-to-Air: While the aircraft can carry a large number of missiles and a more versatile armament loadout, the XF-108's AIM-47 is a far superior weapon than the AIM-4 or AIR-2 owing to the fact that it has far superior range, a proximity fuse, active terminal-guidance, and provision for home-on-jam capability. While the AIR-2 Genie has a nuclear warhead, the AIM-47 could be fitted with one too.
Air-to-Ground: CF-105 wins by default.
Ultimate: Both aircraft were designed as interceptors, so the XF-108A was the better arrangement.


While the CF-105 has an advantage in superior flight-control and stability augmentation, as well as an air-to-ground capability (the weapons pack was also something that would make for more armament options), the XF-108A was ultimately the better performer with better radar and longer-ranged missiles.



drgondog said:


> Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters.


Actually, Boyd made some errors when calculating the F-4's performance. Early figures had often indicated the MiG-21 would be able to outmaneuver and out-sustain the F-4's in turns. While, the F-4 had a higher stall-speed that meant it couldn't turn as tight as the MiG-21, it could actually sustain higher loads in turns up to around 30000-32000', out-accelerate and out-climb the MiG-21 up to 30000-32000' (I'm not sure if this has to do with AoA, inlet efficiency, or engine characteristics -- it's beyond my pay-grade).

I do, regardless, agree with Boyd's basic premise: Fighters should be built with the ability to maneuver across a wider range of altitudes (so more overall power, lower stall-speeds, etc.)


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 3, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.



Yup, nationalism accounted for that bad press, the CF-105 meant so much more to Canada than as an advanced aircraft programme for its air force. The British looked at the CF-105 as an interceptor at one stage but decided against it because its performance fell short of the F.155T interceptor programme. That project, which was looked to be fulfilled by the Fairey Delta tender eventually fell victim to Duncan Sandys' 1957 Defence White Paper, speaking of national outcries...






F155T Design Submissions


Monograph page on F155T designs



rp-one.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Oct 3, 2022)

I


nuuumannn said:


> Yup, nationalism accounted for that bad press, the CF-105 meant so much more to Canada than as an advanced aircraft programme for its air force. The British looked at the CF-105 as an interceptor at one stage but decided against it because its performance fell short of the F.155T interceptor programme. That project, which was looked to be fulfilled by the Fairey Delta tender eventually fell victim to Duncan Sandys' 1957 Defence White Paper, speaking of national outcries...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed, even decades later some clowns were trying to push the CF-105 as an alternative to the F-35 to replace the CF-188s. Lunacy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 3, 2022)

GTX said:


> Lunacy.



Yup, nothing like a bout of national pride as a cure for common sense.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 25, 2022)

It's very tough to have a really nicely designed aircraft, but look at the financial case for building it and determine that it isn't the best use of the money. The original B1A bomber was in that category. The F-108 was probably correctly put in that category. Ditto the B-70. (The XB-70 was a long way from being a service model.) The Lockheed AX-56 Cheyenne is another. All of these were state of the art aircraft, groundbreaking in their time, but none were put into series production, but it is hard to trace any negative consequences to that decision at least in terms of the military security of the nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.


The CF-105 program and resources should have been directed at the same multi-purpose market as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, which first flew in 1958, the very same year as the CF-105.

Also, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley, Avro Canada should have made a multirole aircraft for both Britain and Canada. British and Canadian developments of the Hawker P.1121 can replace the Javelin and Canuck and in naval guise the Scimitar and Vixen, and then substitute the CF-101, CF-104 and English Electric Lightning.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> The CF-105 program and resources should have been directed at the same multi-purpose market as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, which first flew in 1958, the very same year as the CF-105.


I think you'll find that many folks who worked at AVRO crossed the border to gain employment in the US during that period. When I worked at Lockheed I knew several people who were former AVRO employees. I've met a few engineers and tooling folks who migrated south, I'd bet dollars to donuts that McDonnell has their share as well.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you'll find that many folks who worked at AVRO crossed the border to gain employment in the US during that period.


It’s common knowledge that Canada’s aeronautics experts moved to the US after the Arrow program was canceled, but are you suggesting AVRO folks moved to the US during the period it was developed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> It’s common knowledge that Canada’s aeronautics experts moved to the US after the Arrow program was canceled, but are you suggesting AVRO folks moved to the US during the period it was developed?


No after it was cancelled. An ex's stepdad worked for a company in Montreal that was a vendor for AVRO. He was laid off when the Arrow was cancelled but was offered a job in SoCal.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 27, 2022)

Why was Hawker Siddeley working on both the Arrow and P.1125? This seems a ridiculously inefficient use of corporate-wide expertise and resources.

When I read the below extracted from Hawker P.1121 - Wikipedia, I ask myself if the HS Board had any idea what its Canadian subsidiary was working on.

_“In May 1957, Camm produced a rough draft of a twin-engined version of the aircraft, designated as the P.1125, which was to have been powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce RB.133 engines.”_

Was Camm aware that his company owned the Orenda Iroquois?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 27, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> *Why was Hawker Siddeley working on both the Arrow and P.1125? This seems a ridiculously inefficient use of corporate-wide expertise and resources.*
> 
> When I read the below extracted from Hawker P.1121 - Wikipedia, I ask myself if the HS Board had any idea what its Canadian subsidiary was working on.
> 
> ...


Simple - 2 different countries, two different contracts. Manufacturers will sometimes "share" work (even if they are under the same corporate umbrella) depending on the program and if there's a technology offset program in place. I'm sure there were plenty of "corporate-wide expertise and resources" to go around, especially during the 50s.


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 27, 2022)

Both the F-108 (based on B-70 technology in the NAA version) and the F-12 (based on A-12 Oxcart technology) were attractive mainly because they were fast enough to intercept Soviet bombers away from their US targets and then, if they missed with their first AAM's, then turn around and have another try.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 27, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> *Both the F-108 (based on B-70 technology in the NAA version) *and the F-12 (based on A-12 Oxcart technology) were attractive mainly because they were fast enough to intercept Soviet bombers away from their US targets and then, if they missed with their first AAM's, then turn around and have another try.


The F-12 definitely came from the A-12, the B-70 and F-108 came from two entirely specifications. They may have had some company "cross-pollination" but the F-108 come from a whole different place


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 28, 2022)

Take a look at the F-108 and you can see it has a lot of B-70 DNA. Note the downturned tips.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 28, 2022)

It would have a beautiful airplane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> Take a look at the F-108 and you can see it has a lot of B-70 DNA. Note the downturned tips.


Just because they look similar it doesn't mean the F-108 was based on "B-70 technology." (Your quote). The F-108 began development as a replacement for the F-102/ F-106. The USAF put a procurement spec out in 1955 but morphed that requirement into a contract that NAA won in 1957. The contract called for 2 prototypes.

The B-70 was an entire different requirement that started later than the F-108. The "WS-110A" proposal was accepted by the USAF and the initial contract was awarded in 1958 at that point BOTH aircraft were being developed simultaneously. If anything there was probably cross pollination from the F-108!

Sure, they come from the same stable the the F-108 WAS NOT developed from B-70 technology. The time lines of the contract solicitations, proposals and awards prove this!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

