Did the F-108 or F-12 hold any real promise as operational interceptors? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.

ITC F-108 Rapier.jpg
 
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
 
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!
 
Another possible operational F-108 image:

View attachment 676328
I always liked the first design better... When they did the second design they made it longitudianally (sp?) unstable, so they had to throw in a forest of underwing stabilizers. These drawings show only two of four...The B-70 overcame that problem by drooping the wingtips. That also kept the shockwave bubble in place under the intake module. Wave rider...the most advanced aerodynamic design of its day. Nobody touched those guys at NA for Mach 3 design....until Kelly Johnson at Lockheed and the YF-12/SR-71....years later... I have written a short book called The Triple Sonics...
 

Attachments

  • NA Rapier 3 view.jpg
    NA Rapier 3 view.jpg
    6.6 KB · Views: 15
  • Valkyrie at speed.jpg
    Valkyrie at speed.jpg
    119.9 KB · Views: 15
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.

View attachment 677607
Look! It's scaled from official "plints"!
 
Both aircraft were designed against a threat, which was later found out, did not exist, that being a large Soviet Bomber force.

Having spent a lot of time at The National Archives, I can vouch for the prevalence of "Type 37" scaremongering in various documents during the mid-50s. The Type 37 (NATO reporting name "Bison") saw a production run of just 123 examples but spawned hundreds of Victors, Vulcans, Valiants, B-47s and B-52s in response. I suspect that many in the West knew the Bison threat to be spurious but the Soviets must have been laughing all the way to the gulags.
 
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
one exception
from History of the F-106 Delta Dart
The F-106 proved its ultimate performance capabilities in providing aggressor "enemy" delta-wing familiarization training to the Navy's best pilots during the time they were implementing TOP GUN. The Navy jocks learned valuable lessons that the Delta winged 106 was almost unconquerable in the dogfight arena, with guns in the air-to-air environment, which you read so little about in the Navy publications. Wing loading of 43 lbs/sq ft and a .8 -1 TWT put it in a class of its own against the A4s, F-104s, F4B,C,D, F-105, F-100, F8 fighters of its time.....not to mention the many many '14s and '15s that blew engines in attempting to fight when it took them above 40,000 feet, to a guns-only environment. Good thing they finally fixed those great fighters to handle the altitudes the 106s formerly ruled.

Now do an updated Delta with a big turbofan(s), lightweight replacement for the tube SAGE gear and decent missiles to replace the Hughes effort.

You see the start of the new fighters with that requirement
 
Having spent a lot of time at The National Archives, I can vouch for the prevalence of "Type 37" scaremongering in various documents during the mid-50s. The Type 37 (NATO reporting name "Bison") saw a production run of just 123 examples but spawned hundreds of Victors, Vulcans, Valiants, B-47s and B-52s in response. I suspect that many in the West knew the Bison threat to be spurious but the Soviets must have been laughing all the way to the gulags.
1960
Ivan:
Hah, fooled the Stupid Americans that we have a massive Bomber Force
Dimitri:
Jokes on us, they built to overmatch that imaginary threat, with huge numbers of Interceptors and Nike SAMs to stop the bombers that we don't have, plus the great number of Bombers they already have, be equipped with Stand-off Cruise Missiles. and worse, they really are making ICBMs and SLBMs like Sausages, something that we can only boast about.
Americans are Rich enough to do that, we are not
 
Because of the Type 37 scare, the UK & US developed and learned much about large swept wing aircraft production. These new planes allowed the USSR to copy them (JOKE).

Regarding the F-106, I have mentioned in another thread a friend who flew 102s, then 106s for his entire USAF career, who told me when the training mission was over with half fuel remaining, the aircraft could fly straight up allowing for some unauthorised fooling around.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back