Post WW2 Opportunities Lost by the Air Force

[davparlr]

By the end of the Korean War, the Air Force had arguably the best fighter plane in the world, the F-86F, the first supersonic F-100 had flown, the best operational bomber, the B-47, and the incredible B-52 had flown. Somewhat flush with money and the advent of a powerful new enemy, the Soviet Union, the Air Force began to wander a bit. The F-100 was the first operational supersonic fighter, but because of this, it incurred several operational and performance problems. It appeared a bit pudgy compared to the two plus year later and slightly better performing, and similar powered F8U-1. The F-100C seems not to have area ruling and is 6 ft shorter than the trimmer looking F8U-1. Their fighter development seemed to be aimed at specific jobs, namely two main missions, air defense against Russian bomber, represented by the impressive performing but limited task F-104, and the marginally successful F-102 (although the excellent F-106 was in the works). The other mission was the tactical nuclear/penetration capable fighter bomber, the underperforming F-101, and the powerful, fast and iconic F-105. None of these were basic air superiority fighters like the F-86 and F8U. The AF had bitten hard into the no dogfight combat scenario. The Air Force did not try to upgrade the F-100 to the latest F-8 engine, the 18000 pound thrust J57-P-20A. This would have made the F-100 quite comparable to latest F8U as a dog fighter. It would have been slightly slower but would have better wing loading, climb faster, similar thrust to weight ratio, and would have 50% better firepower, four M39 cannons of 1500 rounds per minute (RPM) vs.four Mark 12 cannons of 1000 RPMs. The F-100s could have been effective in providing Combat Air Patrols in the early part of the war, adding to an already outstanding capability, the F-100 flew more combat missions in Vietnam than any other fighter. But the Air Force was caught napping as was the Navy in Korea. Like the Navy in 1950, the Air Force was not ready for an air control war in 1960. What could the AF have done, well, my favorite would be to buy the XF-90 instead of the F-101, only with J-79 engines and area ruling, therefore having a F4 equivalent operational four years before the F4. A lot easier and cheaper would be to upgrade the engine and let it tangle with the Migs over Vietnam, I think it could handle the job quite well until the F4 came on.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Excellent question and points but may I make a suggestion? Please break up the info with some use of the ENTER key, it was hard to read that wall of text with no breaks, I get headaches easily enough as it is.

I'm with you on upgrading the F-100 with a better engine and guns, and the XF-90 with the J-79 and area rule.

Past that I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any valuable comments.

 

[EwenS]

The fundamental problem you have to overcome is the discovery, or should I say, rediscovery, of the "area rule".

Discovered in Germany in WW2 it was forgotten about postwar to be "rediscovered" in late 1951 and applied to aircraft designs from 1952.

Area rule - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So aircraft like the F-100 & F102 began their design process before its rediscovery. The first aircraft to which it was applied were the Grumman F11F Tiger (arising from a 1952 request to Grumman for an updated F9F Panther/Cougar but emerged as a completely different looking aircraft) which entered service in March 1957. The underperformance of the YF-102 at the prototype stage let to a complete redesign in 1954 to incorporate area ruling of the airframe of the F-102A which entered service in May 1956. But due to delays in developing the electronics it was always seen as an interim interceptor pending development of the F-106.

The timeline for the other aircraft you mention is
F8U Crusader 1952 USN requirement. Service entry March 1957
F-106 Delta Dart Final version of planned USAF interceptor. Service entry May 1959.

The F-102/F-106 line were not developed in isolation. They were meant part of an integrated air defence system of radars, aircraft and surface to air missile sites for the defence of the USA. See the Nike Ajax, Hercules, Zeus and BOMARC missile sites.

MIM-3 Nike Ajax - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nike Hercules - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

CIM-10 Bomarc - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nike Zeus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

F-101 comes from a different line of development. The F90, your favourite, was part of an attempt to develop a long range escort fighter for the nuclear bomber fleet. That also included the F-88 and F-93. This whole project was canned in 1950 when it was realised that the new B-47 and B-52 were flying fast enough not to need escort. The perceived need for an escort fighter re-emerged after the start of the Korean War as an escort to the slower propellor driven B-29 and B-36 aircraft. All the old competitors tried again but McDonnell won with a developed F-88 as the F-101. That requirement died post Korea as the types they were due to escort were phased out (the B-36 was phased out between 1956 and 1959) leaving just the jet bombers that it had been decided didn't need escorting. But a role in Tactical Air Command emerged for a platform to deliver nuclear weapons and the F-101 was selected for that role. Service entry May 1957. So it was well and truly caught in a period when USAF requirements were changing. It becomes more of an airframe looking for a role to which it was suited.

Problem for you is that by the mid-1950s the threat is nuclear war. It becomes about defence against the nuclear bomber invading US airspace on the one hand (requiring radar and IR missile armed interceptors and SAMs) and on the other, delivering nuclear weapons against both strategic targets in the USSR, for which no escort fighter was deemed necessary, and tactically on the battlefield in support of the armies. There then isn't much room for the traditional dogfighter of a conventional air war. Air defence outside the USA is largely a problem for the nations concerned and the US Army and its missile sites, not the USAF. War will be over in a few days. It is a period of build up to the 1960s concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.

For the USN there is still the problem of defending its ships at sea from the nuclear bomber. That still requires an aircraft with a good degree of manoeuvrability to position itself for a tail chase required for early heat seeking missiles, that the F8U was equipped with, to work. It was a successor to the likes of the McDonnell F3H Demon from the previous generation whose development and planned service entry had been delayed.

Again when Vietnam came along it was the kind of conventional war that neither the USN nor the USAF expected to fight.

Air defence of the continental USA in the 1950s and 1960s is a much neglected subject.

List of Nike missile sites - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Edit:- if you want to understand the development and service use of USAAC/USAAF/USAF aircraft types I would recommend Joe Baugher's site

American Military Aircraft

 

[EwenS]

The Mark 12 nuclear bomb entered service at the end of 1954 with a yield of 12-14kt and only weighed 1100-1200lbs so was easily carried by most aircraft of the 1950s. 250 were produced through until early 1957 and they were the first of many smaller sized nuclear bombs.

 

[davparlr]

Excellent question and points but may I make a suggestion? Please break up the info with some use of the ENTER key, it was hard to read that wall of text with no breaks, I get headaches easily enough as it is.

I'm with you on upgrading the F-100 with a better engine and guns, and the XF-90 with the J-79 and area rule.

Past that I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any valuable comments.

Sorry, my typing is ahead of my brain.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Sorry, my typing is ahead of my brain.

No worries, I suffer the same malady

 

[davparlr]

I'm with you on upgrading the F-100 with a better engine and guns, and the XF-90 with the J-79 and area rule.

.

I'm with you on upgrading the F-100 with a better engine and guns, and the XF-90 with the J-79 and area rule.

Upgrade the guns? four M39 cannons of 1500 rounds per minute equates to 6000 rounds per minute total of 20mm rounds or equivalent to the Vulcan cannon. Hard to beat that.

 

[swampyankee]

In response to the "better engine for the F-100," which engine? Certainly not the J79, which, it should be noted, was not noted for either robustness or reliability during this period. Better guns, probably easy. Flaps would be nice, but would require a new wing.

 

[MIflyer]

A small production run of F-90's with upgraded engines were produced and seem to have served well in a variety of roles with a private organization.

But the big miss for the USAF was Precision Guided Munitions. By 1947 the technology existed for air launched cruise missiles with TV and/or radar guidance. Not only did the USAF not have those weapons ready for Korea, they did not have it until quite late in Vietnam and had to be browbeat into armed RPV's by the CIA getting there first another 20 years later.

 

[davparlr]

In response to the "better engine for the F-100," which engine? Certainly not the J79, which, it should be noted, was not noted for either robustness or reliability during this period. Better guns, probably easy. Flaps would be nice, but would require a new wing.

Well, first of all, I would replace the j-57-P-21/21A (16k lbs thrust w/ab) in the F-100 with the J-57 -P-20A (18k thrust w/ab) used in the F8U. The extra 2k of thrust would be quite helpful.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Speaking of missed USAF opportunities, what are some of ya'lls thoughts on North Americans Sabre upgrade, the YF-93?

Looks like it'd be a nasty surprise for the MiG-15 about 1951 or so. The six 20mm cannons alone... eek.

 

[davparlr]

Speaking of missed USAF opportunities, what are some of ya'lls thoughts on North Americans Sabre upgrade, the YF-93?

Looks like it'd be a nasty surprise for the MiG-15 about 1951 or so. The six 20mm cannons alone... eek.

A couple of things came into play here, I think. First, the "Sabre Dog" F-86D flew at the same time as the YF-93, which was slightly lighter and better performing, and had a market, all weather fighter, but did not have the range of the YF-93. When the rug was pulled out from under the long-range penetration fighter, that is bomber escort, its reason for existence disappeared,, along with the YF-88 and the YF-90.

 

[davparlr]

Relative to my previous post, I have another addition to missed AF opportunities. At the end of 1949, the AF flew for the first time, the "Sabre Dog", the F-86D. The afterburning F-86D was 'trans sonic" (it could go supersonic going straight down in AB), but knowing it would go supersonic without adverse response was important. The F-86D was much faster than the Mig 15 or the 17. It will greatly out climb the 15, almost equal to the 17. It will outdive both easily. the F-86D easily outclasses the Mig 15, and is pretty equal to the Mig 17.

Now, the missed opportunity. The AF was very concerned about Soviet bombers and prioritize neutralizing the all weather threat, so the all weather f-86D was a priority. However, had the AF used the money saved from the penetration fighter and applied it to a parallel F-86D day fighter production (should have been easy, just installing guns, which they later did and radar gunsight, and deleting all that all-weather radar weapon aiming stuff), they could have gotten into Korea, late 52/53) with an overpowering day fighter. The D remained in AF service until June, '61.

Just looking at what could have been 70 years ago.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Excellent question….

I must be thick but I did not see a single question in the opening post. What question do you think is excellent? There, that's a question.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I must be thick but I did not see a single question in the opening post. What question do you think is excellent? There, that's a question.

"Post WW2 Opportunities Lost by the Air Force"

I took that to be a question to start this discussion.

 

[davparlr]

Well, I meant it to be my opinion for discussion, but, other opinions, additions, are certainly welcome.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, I meant it to be my opinion for discussion, but, other opinions, additions, are certainly welcome.

That's what I discerned. Your OP is a statement of opinion, not an inquiry.