SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I may not understand what you said but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I may not understand what you said but I will defend to the death your right to say it.I was elucidating further the last line of the post I quoted, not taking issue with it; hence the introductory ellipsis.
I may not understand what you said but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GrauGeist said:This philosophy changed with better and more reliable SAM tech in later years.
... and MIRV ICBMs which would render each launching and landing base useless for recovery/regeneration/restrike.
I may not understand what you said but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Love a bit of Cabaret Voltaire.
McDonnell was better than most at taking a current design as a starting point in the form of "lessons learned" and applying them to "a substantially different design off the bat" in a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary way. Witness Phantom I to Banshee and Voodoo to Phantom II, with a little Demon thrown in.Seems that the F-101 was developed at a rather rapid rate of speed.
While it's generally established fact that the F-101 plane was designed to do the F-88's mission but with greater range, IFR and supersonic performance: The question was how much in common they had.
Some people seemed to be under the impression that the F-101 started out with the F-88 as a basic point and then evolved off of that; others that it was to be a substantially different design off the bat: It seemed that the link I put in does seem to indicate it was much more the latter than the former
Well, they would be if the USSR abandoned their bombers. While they developed ICBM's, they didn't get rid of their bombers.I don't see anyone mentioning that by then, interceptor fighter were becoming a thing of the past.
Depends on the missile and the maneuverability of the fighter! The SA-2's weren't that hard to dodge actually (provided pilots realized they were coming).The cost, speed and efficiency of SAMs worldwide had the writing on the wall. Escort fighters would be useless against them
1) Remember there were major military appropriation cutbacks in late '50s and cost effectiveness studies had ADC shift from fighter interceptors to Nikes.Well, they would be if the USSR abandoned their bombers. While they developed ICBM's, they didn't get rid of their bombers.
Depends on the missile and the maneuverability of the fighter! The SA-2's weren't that hard to dodge actually (provided pilots realized they were coming).
I believe you mean "penetration fighters", not "interceptor fighters". Two different things.I don't see anyone mentioning that by then, interceptor fighter were becoming a thing of the past. The cost, speed and efficiency of SAMs worldwide had the writing on the wall. Escort fighters would be useless against them.
I meant interceptor fighters, which are the only reason you would need an escort fighter.I believe you mean "penetration fighters", not "interceptor fighters". Two different things.
"Interceptor fighters" are to defend against intruder aircraft, not to go intrude in another nation's airspace in company with bombers.
Interceptor fighters are still around (MiG-31), and were common in the 1960s (F-102, F-106, EE Lightning, Su-9/11/15, Tu-128 (Tu-28 Fiddler), MiG-25, and so on.
I don't see anyone mentioning that by then, interceptor fighter were becoming a thing of the past. The cost, speed and efficiency of SAMs worldwide had the writing on the wall.
Also note, that with our Nikes, etc., the role of Air Defense Command was changing.
cost effectiveness studies had ADC shift from fighter interceptors to Nikes.
Fannum, it looks like you're a little ahead of yourself here. Sure SA2s and Nikes were putting in their appearance circa 1960 (FG Powers), but they were far from an impenetrable shield for at least another decade, if ever. And the Bulls and the Bears and the Badgers were always lurking out there to send their standoff missiles through the pores in the sieve. Thank God for interceptors, especially the long legged ones, even if they were in the hands of weekend warriors and the almighty SAGE! My state's ANG spent nearly two decades standing 24/7/365 Hot Pad in F94s, F89s, and F102s.Well, they would be if the USSR abandoned their bombers. While they developed ICBM's, they didn't get rid of their bombers.
Note that I said "Also note, that with our Nikes, etc., the role of Air Defense Command was changing. Fighters were being sent to ANG and Reserves."Fannum, it looks like you're a little ahead of yourself here. Sure SA2s and Nikes were putting in their appearance circa 1960 (FG Powers), but they were far from an impenetrable shield for at least another decade, if ever. And the Bulls and the Bears and the Badgers were always lurking out there to send their standoff missiles through the pores in the sieve. Thank God for interceptors, especially the long legged ones, even if they were in the hands of weekend warriors and the almighty SAGE! My state's ANG spent nearly two decades standing 24/7/365 Hot Pad in F94s, F89s, and F102s.
The B-52 had very effective jammers. Admittedly the jammers from 1966 on were much more capable than earlier versions, but I'm not sure how much improvements came to radar systems during this period.I believe you're missing the point. Escort fighters were no protection for a bomber targeted by a SAM ala late '50s. Our F-4s in SEAsia could evade SAMs (but only with sufficient warning!) B-52s ... not so much!
What aircraft?with the Cuban Missile Crisis; during which I flew off the Wasp in the blockade.
What years? I was at Boca Chica 1971-74, doing training device support for VF101, and working part time for the base fueling contractor. Every time Hot Pad returned from a scramble we'd get an urgent call to get the birds topped off, muy pronto! If Fidel's boys were active and Willy Victor was out and about, Hot Pad would be scrambling repeatedly, and I would spend my entire shift running back and forth between Hot Pad and the fuel farm. Key West was a favorite destination for cross country "proficiency" flights, and on weekends the transient line often could pass for a military aviation museum.Also, later in VF-31, our F-4s would periodically be rotated to 'Hot Pad' duty out of NAS Key West, escorting Bears in and out of Cuba.
btw - technically, we were backing up the F-106s housed in air conditioned hangars out of Homestead while we were just on an open ramp, operating out of marginally air conditioned house trailers. We prided ourselves by beating the ANG to the Tupolevs the vast majority of the time.
Again, this thread was based on late 50s, and in the next 10-15 years, a total revolution occurred in the SAC mission ... both translating to a non-nuclear, middle ground between tactical and strategic bombing. Carpet bombing was confined to the South due to the massive AAA and SAM threats up North, and initial high losses there. Also, politics kept us away from the most beneficial targets, the air bases, SAM stocks, ports, power production, etc.The B-52 had very effective jammers. Admittedly the jammers from 1966 on were much more capable than earlier versions, but I'm not sure how much improvements came to radar systems during this period.
There were numerous exercises from 1958-1962 by SAC in which they would simulate tactics that would approximate what they'd do in a real mission: The idea was to use three-ship cells to maximize jamming effectiveness, which would fly overlapping dog-leg maneuvers combined with chaffing, decoys, and some dedicated jammer aircraft to overwhelm enemy air defenses. While more and more bomber missions were aiming at coming in down low, the fact is, that they weren't totally unwilling to come in high in some cases.
The fighters in those days seemed to have little if any ECM, but they could maneuver and could deal with fighters that the enemy would use.