F-106 Delta Darts in the Vietnam War

Delta Force

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
23 May 2013
Messages
75
Reaction score
14
How might Sidewinder armed F-106 "Six Shooters" (F-106s equipped with bubble canopies and Vulcan cannons) have performed during the Vietnam War? The F-106 had maneuverability on par with the F-4 Phantom II, being better in some situations and worse in others. It also carried an IRST system, which I'm not sure the F-4 carried. For purposes of this thread, we'll assume the "Six Shooters" are upgraded on a similar timetable as the USAF F-4s, gaining Sidewinders and Vulcans around the same time.
 
How'd you carry Sidewinders on them? Isn't the F-106 bay rather specifically designed around the Falcons?
 
The Sidewinder is about one meter longer, than the Falcon, but with lower wingspan. The weapons bay
was carrying the missiles in tandem rows, so length was sufficient to carry the Sidewinder, I think.
The installation in the bay probably would have had to be changed considerably and I don't know, if
flying with the bay open and the ejector extended until the Sidewinder had locked on would have been
a practical method.
 
Assuming the intent would be for the Dart to fill an air superiority role, why would it not have used Falcon? Even if that is not a realistic idea, I am sure that a modification could have been made in relatively little time to allow the Dart to carry Sidewinder. Or there is the possibility that a two Sidewinder kit could be put on the hard points, could it naught?
 
Here is a picture of the F-106 bay from a scale model, it looks like it could carry at least 3 (2 down the side, one down the middle), perhaps more with creative arrangements.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/images/galleries/articles/257-356/15724/gallery_28542/photos_1265263228_th.jpg

As for why you would not want to use the Falcon, the early versions suffered from flaws that rendered them unsuitable for dogfighting (limited coolant supply, long lock-on times, contact only warheads). The AIM-4H was supposed to fix many of those flaws, but the USAF just decided to go with the Sidewinder except on the F-106:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4_Falcon#Operational_history
 
Delta Force said:
Here is a picture of the F-106 bay from a scale model, it looks like it could carry at least 3 (2 down the side, one down the middle), perhaps more with creative arrangements.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/images/galleries/articles/257-356/15724/gallery_28542/photos_1265263228_th.jpg

As for why you would not want to use the Falcon, the early versions suffered from flaws that rendered them unsuitable for dogfighting (limited coolant supply, long lock-on times, contact only warheads). The AIM-4H was supposed to fix many of those flaws, but the USAF just decided to go with the Sidewinder except on the F-106:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4_Falcon#Operational_history
Okay maybe you put an extra fuel tank in the bay and put four Sidewinder on the wind hardpoints. Was there not a weapon pylon for two Sidewinder that was put on the F-4?
 
Delta Force said:
As for why you would not want to use the Falcon, the early versions suffered from flaws that rendered them unsuitable for dogfighting (limited coolant supply, long lock-on times, contact only warheads). The AIM-4H was supposed to fix many of those flaws, but the USAF just decided to go with the Sidewinder except on the F-106:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4_Falcon#Operational_history
As far as I know a lot if not all of those problems (except the limitations of the contact fuse) were inherent to the improvised installation on the F-4 which was never designed around the missile like the F-102 and F-106 was.
 
yasotay said:
Okay maybe you put an extra fuel tank in the bay and put four Sidewinder on the wind hardpoints. Was there not a weapon pylon for two Sidewinder that was put on the F-4?
FWIW,


As a theoretical design exercise this is a nice topic, but in the real world, frankly why bother? You could do this and then you'd have an F-106 that can carry 4 AIM-9s, but you're already got the F-4 which can do that (always could carry AIM-9) plus carry 4 AIM-7.

The F-4 would also be more effective in the A2A role for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it didn't need the SAGE system for maximum effectiveness, a system that would have been difficult and expensive to bring to Vietnam. The F-106 was a good turner, being a pure delta and would have been extremely valuable for DACT back in the States, if USAF had been interested in that at the time.

I think the F-106 actually had an IR seeker, permitting passive tracking, not a full IRST as we know them today, the F-4B & C had one as well, but was dropped due to poor reliability out in the field. The F-106 kept theirs, possibly because they tended to regularly operate from more extensive facilities.

I suppose you could spend a lot of money and time to refit the F-106 with a bubble canopy (a fairly major redesign), but what would it gain that you didn't already have with other platforms? It would still be a single purpose aircraft lacking the ability to carry something that would be a major requirement during Vietnam.
 

Attachments

  • f4bombs.jpg
    f4bombs.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 985
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
Okay maybe you put an extra fuel tank in the bay and put four Sidewinder on the wind hardpoints. Was there not a weapon pylon for two Sidewinder that was put on the F-4?
FWIW,


As a theoretical design exercise this is a nice topic, but in the real world, frankly why bother? You could do this and then you'd have an F-106 that can carry 4 AIM-9s, but you're already got the F-4 which can do that (always could carry AIM-9) plus carry 4 AIM-7.

The F-4 would also be more effective in the A2A role for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it didn't need the SAGE system for maximum effectiveness, a system that would have been difficult and expensive to bring to Vietnam. The F-106 was a good turner, being a pure delta and would have been extremely valuable for DACT back in the States, if USAF had been interested in that at the time.

I think the F-106 actually had an IR seeker, permitting passive tracking, not a full IRST as we know them today, the F-4B & C had one as well, but was dropped due to poor reliability out in the field. The F-106 kept theirs, possibly because they tended to regularly operate from more extensive facilities.

I suppose you could spend a lot of money and time to refit the F-106 with a bubble canopy (a fairly major redesign), but what would it gain that you didn't already have with other platforms? It would still be a single purpose aircraft lacking the ability to carry something that would be a major requirement during Vietnam.
Party pooper! ;D
 
I've found a fairly good source for F-106 information (link: http://www.f-106deltadart.com/history.htm). Apparently Project Six Shooter has its origins in proposals to use the aircraft in the Vietnam War. The upgrades never called for a bubble canopy, nor was one fitted. The upgrade actually involved removing a metal strip above the pilot's head.

It wouldn't be impossible for the F-106 to carry weapons externally, although it would harm the clean aerodynamics of the design. Once supersonic tanks were developed, the F-106 almost always carried them around. Foreign variants were proposed where the tanks would be abandoned in favor of additional munitions, including air-to-ground weapons. Adding air-to-ground capabilities is probably too extensive a development for existing F-106 aircraft, but perhaps the tanks could be wired to enable missile carriage?

If it keeps the tanks, the F-106 might be able to escort the F-105 on missions deeper into Vietnam. It might even be able to do that without the tanks. That could give it a useful niche in the conflict, as the F-105 wasn't known for its abilities in a dogfight, and the F-106 wouldn't be able to carry large air-to-ground payloads.
 
Many years ago I saw a picture of the six deployed to Korea with bombs on the wings. It was a joke on the PACAF Commander who was coming through on a inspection. If memory serves there is a picture of the general officer in question standing next to the bombed up wing laughing with a "that's just WRONG" look on his face.
 
Steve Pace said:
F-102s were used in the Vietnam War - even as ground attack aircraft firing their Falcon missiles at strategic targets. -SP
Really!!

More please !?!
 
yasotay said:
Many years ago I saw a picture of the six deployed to Korea with bombs on the wings. It was a joke on the PACAF Commander who was coming through on a inspection. If memory serves there is a picture of the general officer in question standing next to the bombed up wing laughing with a "that's just WRONG" look on his face.

 
Steve Pace said:
F-102s were used in the Vietnam War - even as ground attack aircraft firing their Falcon missiles at strategic targets. -SP


I remember an article in 'Wings' or 'Airpower' about the F-102 in Vietnam, but think the use of the Falcons was against campfires and trucks. I'll look over the weekend and see if I can find the article.


Joe
 
jstar said:
Steve Pace said:
F-102s were used in the Vietnam War - even as ground attack aircraft firing their Falcon missiles at strategic targets. -SP


I remember an article in 'Wings' or 'Airpower' about the F-102 in Vietnam, but think the use of the Falcons was against campfires and trucks. I'll look over the weekend and see if I can find the article.


Joe


I remember reading the same tales. Falcon against hot ground targets, with sketchy success.
 
Project STOVE PIPE:

The Falcon missile arrived on-scene in Southeast Asia during August of 1961. At this time, F-102As from the 509th FIS resided at Clark AFB in the Philippines, and a detachment deployed to Don Muang Airport near Bangkok, Thailand, to provide air defense during the initial hostilities. From 1962 to 1964, 509th FIS F-102As deployed to South Vietnam on various occasions to provide air defense of the nation in anticipation of incursions by the North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF). These F-102As served as alert interceptors, authorized to engage any NVAF aircraft intruding into South Vietnamese airspace.

Beginning in August of 1964, F-102As from the 509th FIS and the Okinawa-based 16th FIS arrived at Da Nang and Tan Son Nhut airbases respectively to begin a long-term F-102A presence in the region. At various times, F-102As from the Clark-based 64th FIS and the Okinawa-based 82nd FIS would also deploy to the region. The F-102A maintained a presence in South Vietnam until 1970.

F-102A operations in South Vietnam primarily consisted of sitting alert to protect airbases from NVAF attack. However, during the second half of 1965, Project STOVE PIPE demonstrated that the USAF was willing to do anything to stem the flow of resources along the Ho Chi Minh trail. STOVE PIPE involved the use of Tan Son Nhut-based 509th FIS F-102As against ground targets. Employing their IR seekers, F-102As sought out targets along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, engaging them with IR-guided AIM-4D Falcon missiles and 2.75-inch rockets. If they detected a sufficient radar return, the F-102s also employed SARH-guided Falcons.

Because of the nature of Project STOVE PIPE, primarily due to the night engagements, it was often difficult to ascertain if the efforts were having any measurable effect on North Vietnamese resupply efforts. On some occasions, immediate success was evident due to the observation of secondary explosions. One particular sortie saw a North Vietnamese munitions dump struck by Falcon missiles. Secondary explosions continued at the facility for two days, obliterating the supply cache. Despite these efforts, however, Project STOVE PIPE did not significantly manage to stem the flow of material along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Following Project STOVE PIPE, F-102As operations in South Vietnam returned to air combat. Duties included sitting alert, escorting various military formations, and escorting VIP and commercial flights in the theater. On February 3, 1968, 509th FIS F-102As escorting a group of EW aircraft over Laos participated in the Deuce’s only air combat engagement of the war. A pair of NVAF MiG-21s engaged the F-102As, shooting down 1st Lieutenant Wallace Wiggins in the process with an R-3 (AA-2 ATOLL) AAM. Captain Allen Lomax proceeded to engage one of the MiG-21s with three AIM-4Ds, but the separation was too great for a successful engagement of the departing target.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html#mozTocId682318
 
I wrote an article about this for Flight Journal magazine several years ago. -SP
 
This had to be one of the more off-the-wall ideas they had. I've also heard tales of Phantom crews trying to smack boats with the AIM-7.
 
SOC said:
This had to be one of the more off-the-wall ideas they had. I've also heard tales of Phantom crews trying to smack boats with the AIM-7.

IIRC this actually happened in Desert Storm with Hornets as the shooter.
 
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
Many years ago I saw a picture of the six deployed to Korea with bombs on the wings. It was a joke on the PACAF Commander who was coming through on a inspection. If memory serves there is a picture of the general officer in question standing next to the bombed up wing laughing with a "that's just WRONG" look on his face.


This is the one I was looking for:

 
sferrin said:
SOC said:
This had to be one of the more off-the-wall ideas they had. I've also heard tales of Phantom crews trying to smack boats with the AIM-7.

IIRC this actually happened in Desert Storm with Hornets as the shooter.

Happened once with a Canadian Forces Hornet in Desert Storm. First aircraft on the target of a suspected Iraqi high speed boat, it fired the Sparrow from a vertical descent. Without observed effect.
 
That is the picture! Even better the ADC Commander.
 
SOC said:
I've also heard tales of Phantom crews trying to smack boats with the AIM-7.
israelis claim success with Sparrows against Missile Boats in 1973 or 82 , while USAF has indeed hit USN ships with AAMs in a friendly fire incident in Vietnam -reportedly firing at "helicopters" .
 
IIRC the USN managed to hit a Turkish frigate with an accidentally-fired RIM-7 on an exercise. The damage done was sufficient that the frigate was a writeoff, and the penalty they paid was the donation of a Kidd-class destroyer. Granted the launch profile and the guidance system were radically different, but it at least shows that the warhead was capable of significant destruction if a hit could be scored.


The F-106 just isn't a dogfighter, at least not philosophically (its missile armament was grossly mismatched to that task, and would have remained so without AIM-4H or a proximity fuze lashup to the -4D). Neither was the F-105 really; but for what was basically a tactical bomber, the -105 has quite a significant list of air-to-air kills to its credit. Even when your best suit is straight-line speed at low level, having an effective built-in gun with a large ammunition supply (over 1000 rounds) and sometimes a spare AIM-9 or two doesn't hurt.
 
it was USS Saratoga that hit TCG Muavenet , a Sumner class DD kept for fire support -was "the most heavily armed ship in the Turkish Navy" with guns sticking out of everywhere . Supposedly the missile crews were on drugs at the time ; there has been much commentary on pressure applied by Washington on matters relating from Bosnia to Azerbeycan . The USN turned over 4 Knox class frigates free , we bought another 4 .
 
r16 said:
it was USS Saratoga that hit TCG Muavenet , a Sumner class DD kept for fire support -was "the most heavily armed ship in the Turkish Navy" with guns sticking out of everywhere . Supposedly the missile crews were on drugs at the time ; there has been much commentary on pressure applied by Washington on matters relating from Bosnia to Azerbeycan . The USN turned over 4 Knox class frigates free , we bought another 4 .


Thanks for the clarification. :)
 
Some guy's blog musings on the possibility of turning the F-106 into a multirole fighter.

http://scramcannon.blogspot.com/2014/12/could-f-106-have-been-turned-into.html
 
He's got a point, but conversion to use AIM-9 isn't what the F-106 would have needed; AIM-4H or some other proximity-fuzed and combat-optimised development of Falcon is what it needed. That way the interceptor version back home defending the CONUS can use the same missiles and you get economies of scale. On the other hand, the ability to carry a pair of AIM-7s on the wing racks for long-range kills (the Falcon is notoriously short-legged by comparison) wouldn't have been a bad option if only you could convince the FCS to work with the missiles. In the CONUS air defence environment, the ROE are going to be different from what was happening in SE Asia; anything coming over the pole is going to be hostile, and you can shoot it in the face at 20 miles with impunity. Better in that context to risk fratricide than an H-bomb on a North American city!
 
r16 said:
SOC said:
I've also heard tales of Phantom crews trying to smack boats with the AIM-7.
israelis claim success with Sparrows against Missile Boats in 1973 or 82 , while USAF has indeed hit USN ships with AAMs in a friendly fire incident in Vietnam -reportedly firing at "helicopters" .

That is really not comforting... on multiple levels

What was the ratio between NVA and U.S. helicopters in service? - also why was a U.S. ship in an area that would be more likely to have NVA helicopters than U.S. helicopters?
 
Maybe it was one of the LST's used as a mothership for the Seawolves's Hueys.
 
"while USAF has indeed hit USN ships with AAMs in a friendly fire incident in Vietnam -reportedly firing at "helicopters" .


That is really not comforting... on multiple levels"

it gets even better when one reads that they "were" firing on UFOs and the helicopters were just the cover-up part . Not that it's me saying that , now that helicopters on support of infiltration makes sense - although AN-2s were readily known to be better .
 
The RAN Charles F Adams / Perth Class Destroyer HMAS Hobart was fired upon and hit by USAF aircraft while serving on the gun line off Vietnam with two crew members killed and seven wounded. Ironically the ships attacked were investigating the same reported helicopter activity the USAF thought they were interdicting when they fired upon Hobart, Boston and Edson. USS Chicago was also hit in a separate attack and the attacks only ceased when the ships returned fire, which is probably the point when the pilots realised they had been attacking allied warships and not UFOs, helicopters or cargo ships.
 
which is naturally the perfect thing with UFOs simulating helicopter signatures over the ships so that the otherwise determined Australians could go home . ı hear USAF denied involvement until the Shrike fragments with production numbers were "produced" at the discussion by the Australians .
 
And a recent Osprey title :

"Sidewinders were sometimes used against heat-emitting ground targets of opportunity such as motor vehicles when crews were returning from an escort mission that had yielded no aerial opposition. F-4 crews on night missions occasionally used one to knock out a searchlight battery that had illuminated them over a target area. Both AIM-7s and AIM-9s were sometimes fired at North Vietnamese boats that were attempting to capture aircrew who had ejected close to the coast. The rescue of Lt Cdr Chris Christensen and Lt(jg) Lance Kramer of VF-92, shot down by VPAF ace Nguyen Van Coc five miles offshore on 7 May 1968, required an AIM-7 and two AIM-9s from other ‘Silver Kings” F-4Bs to keep intruding junks at bay – not quite what the missile’s designers had envisaged."

obviously a reflection on lack of guns
 
How might Sidewinder armed F-106 "Six Shooters" (F-106s equipped with bubble canopies and Vulcan cannons) have performed during the Vietnam War? The F-106 had maneuverability on par with the F-4 Phantom II, being better in some situations and worse in others. It also carried an IRST system, which I'm not sure the F-4 carried. For purposes of this thread, we'll assume the "Six Shooters" are upgraded on a similar timetable as the USAF F-4s, gaining Sidewinders and Vulcans around the same time.
That’s a great idea! Why hasn’t anyone done a design on that before? Please upload any concept art of the design you thought up of.
 
I see no reason to put Sidewinders on F-106. They could just use the Falcons. F-106 wasn't a semi-brainless Phantom, it have all required automatic to make Falcon launches efficient. Arm them with the AIM-4H (refit of AIM-4D with laser proximity fuze), and problem is solved.
 
Back
Top Bottom