F-35 vs. F-106

[exclaimedleech8]

Here's something mind blowing: The F-106 required only 16000 pounds of thrust to go Mach 1.5. An F-35 requires 25000 pounds to go Mach 1.2

 

[Scott Kenny]

Here's something mind blowing: The F-106 required only 16000 pounds of thrust to go Mach 1.5. An F-35 requires 25000 pounds to go Mach 1.2

Stealth and a lousy fineness ratio cost a lot.

They would not be flying in formations, they'd fly far apart

Possibly. I know the B-52s were intended to fly in 3-ship cells for SIOP, as demonstrated in the Linebacker raids in Vietnam. Has anyone found Soviet air training books?

 

[exclaimedleech8]

Stealth and a lousy fineness ratio cost a lot.

Most important is the F-106's coke bottle shaped fuselage, an area ruled masterpiece.

Possibly. I know the B-52s were intended to fly in 3-ship cells for SIOP, as demonstrated in the Linebacker raids in Vietnam. Has anyone found Soviet air training books?

I'd say it's just common sense.

 

[Ainen]

Most important is the F-106's coke bottle shaped fuselage, an area ruled masterpiece.

Well, it isn't like LM didn't know area ruling. It's just the opposite purpose, with F-35 being hard capped on length, while carrying 2x2000lb inside. F-35 isn't just a strike fighter, it's a small strike fighter with very heavy bombs.

F-106 - bein much lighter - was in fact as long as damn flanker, and it's IWB had weapons optimized for internal carriage, rather than an IWB built to fit lots of specific (originally external) weapons in parallel.

Even a fraction of additional length with a bit lesser bomb bay width requirement makes things substantially easier (J-35, Su-75).

 

[exclaimedleech8]

Well, it isn't like LM didn't know area ruling. It's just the opposite purpose, with F-35 being hard capped on length, while carrying 2x2000lb inside. F-35 isn't just a strike fighter, it's a small strike fighter with very heavy bombs.

F-106 - bein much lighter - was in fact as long as damn flanker, and it's IWB had weapons optimized for internal carriage, rather than an IWB built to fit lots of specific (originally external) weapons in parallel.

Even a fraction of additional length with a bit lesser bomb bay width requirement makes things substantially easier (J-35, Su-75).

Still though, it's remarkable what a bunch of guys achieved with slide rules and an IBM 650.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Still though, it's remarkable what a bunch of guys achieved with slide rules and an IBM 650.

Oh, yeah, the F-106 is a thing of beauty!

I'd say it's just common sense.

Really depends on the airframe-lethal blast radius of 1.5kt... Wiki says ~300m, which seems small to me but I suspect it's due to reduced air pressure at 30-40kft.

Hrm. I'm getting

Flight tactics called for formations of three B-52s, separated by 500 feet in altitude and one mile in horizontal distance.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1197linebacker/

So that may be far enough apart to avoid the entire flight getting smashed by a single missile detonating close to the center.

 

[Firefinder]

Also imagine that the F35 weighing at 70k pounds to the 106 35k helps a whole lot in getting better speed.

 

[exclaimedleech8]

Also imagine that the F35 weighing at 70k pounds to the 106 35k helps a whole lot in getting better speed.

Weight matters for acceleration, it has only an indirect effect on top speed, that's why the Mig-25 could cruise at Mach 2.35 despite weighing in at 80,000 pounds fully loaded.

 

[Ainen]

Also imagine that the F35 weighing at 70k pounds to the 106 35k helps a whole lot in getting better speed.

MTOW weight is only tangential in this matter, as it covers what's outside.

I.e. it's expressed only in that for F-106A MTOW is it's normal(full) weapon load + 2 supersonic 360 gal tanks. All this together was still perfectly good for up to M=2.

For F-35A, MTOW will include heavier external stores one can even come up with, including stupid, but possible configurations within limits. But in a supersonic configuration it'll carry two sidewinders outside at most.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-35A mission takeoff weight is going to be on the order of 55klbs with full internal fuel, two AMRAAMs, and two 2000lb bombs.

Which puts 50% fuel weight at around 46klbs, making the T:W ratio ~0.91 before dropping the bombs, and right about 1 afterwards.

Okay, just for grins and beverages, what do we think the odds are for an F-106 versus F-35 fight within visual range? (Because BVR, the F-35 shoots the F-106 before the Six even knows the F-35 is there!)

 

[Ainen]

Okay, just for grins and beverages, what do we think the odds are for an F-106 versus F-35 fight within visual range? (Because BVR, the F-35 shoots the F-106 before the Six even knows the F-35 is there!)

One sided slaughter?
There's no point comparing a post-4th generation, post-supermaneuverability fbw-equipped 9G fighter with a space race era lawn dart.

 

[Dilandu]

Okay, just for grins and beverages, what do we think the odds are for an F-106 versus F-35 fight within visual range? (Because BVR, the F-35 shoots the F-106 before the Six even knows the F-35 is there!)

Little chances for F-106; the F-35 is more maneuverable, have helmet sight, more advanced sensors and all-aspect missiles.

F-106 basically only chance is very high-speed straightforward attack with Falcon missiles fired almost point-blank. And the chances are not good either.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Little chances for F-106; the F-35 is more maneuverable, have helmet sight, more advanced sensors and all-aspect missiles.

F-106 basically only chance is very high-speed straightforward attack with Falcon missiles fired almost point-blank. And the chances are not good either.

That's largely because the 106 was designed for a specific mission at the time. That mission was intercepting intercontinental nuclear bombers. The assumed target was a high subsonic to supersonic bomber flying at medium to high altitude on a relatively straight course. The 106 only needed enough maneuverability to line up on the target, lock on, then fire a salvo of missiles into it ensuring a shootdown. The plane had to be big enough to have the range and speed to intercept before the bomber reached potential targets and to carry late 1950's - 1960's electronics allowing it to interact with SAGE.

It was a one-mission aircraft for all intents.

 

[Foo Fighter]

What about the substantial low vis of the F-106? I for one, have not seen one for a Looong time.

 

[Dilandu]

That's largely because the 106 was designed for a specific mission at the time. That mission was intercepting intercontinental nuclear bombers. The assumed target was a high subsonic to supersonic bomber flying at medium to high altitude on a relatively straight course. The 106 only needed enough maneuverability to line up on the target, lock on, then fire a salvo of missiles into it ensuring a shootdown. The plane had to be big enough to have the range and speed to intercept before the bomber reached potential targets and to carry late 1950's - 1960's electronics allowing it to interact with SAGE.

It was a one-mission aircraft for all intents.

Exactly. I dare say, that for this specific purpose it would still be better than F-35 (of course, if refitted with modern electronics), but F-106 simply isn't maneuverable fighter.

 

[Sundog]

Exactly. I dare say, that for this specific purpose it would still be better than F-35 (of course, if refitted with modern electronics), but F-106 simply isn't maneuverable fighter.

For it's day it wasn't a bad dog fighter at high alt. Below 36K an F-4 would win. Above 36K the F-106 would win. Above 36K, it would most likely outmaneuver the F-35 or be competitive with it, with the exception of the F-35C. Never underestimate the power of a big wing at high altitude.

 

[aim9xray]

Oh, yeah, the F-106 is a thing of beauty!




Really depends on the airframe-lethal blast radius of 1.5kt... Wiki says ~300m, which seems small to me but I suspect it's due to reduced air pressure at 30-40kft.

Hrm. I'm getting

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1197linebacker/

So that may be far enough apart to avoid the entire flight getting smashed by a single missile detonating close to the center.

Formation cell distances in Linebacker were were dictated by mutual ECM self-defense requirements.

"Linebacker: View from the Rock"

 

[exclaimedleech8]

The instruction manuals seemed to assume each Genie was only going to destroy 1 bomber. The real advantage of a nuclear warhead was that even if the missile didn't directly hit, it would still down the target.

Back to our F-106 vs F-35 argument. It should be kept in mind that each F-106 cost about $42 million in today's money, vs over $100 million for an F-35, so really we should be asking where 1 F-35 would be superior to *2* F-106s

 

[whatismoo]

View attachment 817661
The instruction manuals seemed to assume each Genie was only going to destroy 1 bomber. The real advantage of a nuclear warhead was that even if the missile didn't directly hit, it would still down the target.

Back to our F-106 vs F-35 argument. It should be kept in mind that each F-106 cost about $42 million in today's money, vs over $100 million for an F-35, so really we should be asking where 1 F-35 would be superior to *2* F-106s

Two AIM-120s and go home. Shit, AIM-9X would blow an F-106 to bits from beyond Falcon's engagement range and the F-35 has the sensors to win the situational awareness fight any day. Even beyond that Falcon and the MA-1 would be rendered inoperable by the F-35's defensive suite.

I love the F-106, it was a great plane. But the difference here is so great that the F-35 may as well be shooting the crappiest export MiG-23s.

 

[Sferrin]

Two AIM-120s and go home. Shit, AIM-9X would blow an F-106 to bits from beyond Falcon's engagement range and the F-35 has the sensors to win the situational awareness fight any day. Even beyond that Falcon and the MA-1 would be rendered inoperable by the F-35's defensive suite.

I love the F-106, it was a great plane. But the difference here is so great that the F-35 may as well be shooting the crappiest export MiG-23s.

Or the F-106 uses it's IRST and lobs a nuke in your direction.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or the F-106 uses it's IRST and lobs a nuke in your direction.

An unguided nuke with a kill radius of about 300-500m.

 

[flateric]

What F-35, AMRAAMS and AIM-9X what ifs are doing here?

 

[whatismoo]

Or the F-106 uses it's IRST and lobs a nuke in your direction.

F-106 IRST is an ancient 1950s model vs the very fancy IR system on F-35. Hell you might be able to shoot the Genie down!

In any case AIM-120 outranges Genie by what, a factor of 10? Genie has a ±12 second burn and then goes bang, which IIRC gets it to what 10km? I'm pretty sure AIM-9X outrages it. Maybe only X block 2?

But when AIM-120 can reach out to what, >100km? Come on. It's no contest.

 

[whatismoo]

What F-35, AMRAAMS and AIM-9X what ifs are doing here?

I have no idea. Feel free to move or delete as merited.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Back to our F-106 vs F-35 argument. It should be kept in mind that each F-106 cost about $42 million in today's money, vs over $100 million for an F-35, so really we should be asking where 1 F-35 would be superior to *2* F-106s

Yes. As noted the F-106 is a single-mission airplane that does one thing very, very well: haul ass up high under ground control to lob a few Falcons or a Genie at incoming bombers.

For just about every other fighter mission the F-35 is going to be vastly more effective.

 

[H_K]

Yes. As noted the F-106 is a single-mission airplane that does one thing very, very well: haul ass up high under ground control to lob a few Falcons or a Genie at incoming bombers.

For just about every other fighter mission the F-35 is going to be vastly more effective.

The proper comparison would be F-106 with modern tech vs F-35.

... ie. modern engine (F135 should fit in the same space as J75), modern avionics (AESA radar, HMS, IRST, ECM etc), Have Glass style stealth treatments, Mirage 2000 style unstable fly-by-wire flight control software etc. 3 AIM-120s should fit staggered in the F-106's weapons bay.

F-35 would have the advantage of stealth. F-106 would probably fly faster, higher, with better nose pointing ability.

 

[F119Doctor]

From what I have read in so magazine pilot evaluations in the late 1970s regarding the F-106 vs F-4, the -106 had a great instantaneous turn rate, but bled energy quickly like most delta wing aircraft. I believe it was only stressed to a 6-7G limit, but this is less of a limit in high altitude maneuvering

 

[Scott Kenny]

The proper comparison would be F-106 with modern tech vs F-35.

... ie. modern engine (F135 should fit in the same space as J75), modern avionics (AESA radar, HMS, IRST, ECM etc), Have Glass style stealth treatments, Mirage 2000 style unstable fly-by-wire flight control software etc. 3 AIM-120s should fit staggered in the F-106's weapons bay.

But you'll need ~20% bigger inlets because the F135 is inhaling ~310lbs/sec while a J75 is "only" inhaling about 256lbs/sec.

F-35 would have the advantage of stealth. F-106 would probably fly faster, higher, with better nose pointing ability.

Not sure that even a stealthy interceptor would get into a noise-pointing dogfight, but a delta has to win in the first turn or it's dumped too much energy.

 

[H_K]

But you'll need ~20% bigger inlets because the F135 is inhaling ~310lbs/sec while a J75 is "only" inhaling about 256lbs/sec.

Not sure that even a stealthy interceptor would get into a noise-pointing dogfight, but a delta has to win in the first turn or it's dumped too much energy.

Good point, make it an F100-PW-229 then. Good fuel consumption, saves 2,000lb in weight, and probably frees up space for more internal fuel.

As for delta maneuverability… a properly flown Mirage 2000 typically will do quite well against an F-16, so not too much to worry there.

 

[exclaimedleech8]

Still though, it's remarkable what a bunch of guys achieved with slide rules and an IBM 650.

And at least 2 women, 1 of whom specifically worked with Convair's wind tunnel data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Finley
https://www.towson.edu/magazine/documents/magazine-fall-2013.pdf

 

[Ainen]

The proper comparison would be F-106 with modern tech vs F-35.

... ie. modern engine (F135 should fit in the same space as J75), modern avionics (AESA radar, HMS, IRST, ECM etc), Have Glass style stealth treatments, Mirage 2000 style unstable fly-by-wire flight control software etc. 3 AIM-120s should fit staggered in the F-106's weapons bay.

F-35 would have the advantage of stealth. F-106 would probably fly faster, higher, with better nose pointing ability.

You can try using LTS as a reasonable (paper) proxy, with the caveat that it's also just a strike fighter, much like the JSF. Just thinner and faster one.

An interesting thing would be to try an actual 100% air superiority lawn dart.
-maximum stealth achievable(F-106 could maneuver, but it was more or less a by-product of delta wing; it doesn't contradict LO either);
-maximum supercruise - and reheat(climb) - achievable; airframe can be stretched as much as necessary; F119 is the engine of choice probably.
-best sensors we will be able to fit to pass the lock from the GCI;
-use CUDA-like weapon to get a substantial weapon load out of a constrained long/narrow IWB.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If we're messing with the F-106 airframe, can we get twin angled tails instead of one vertical tail?

 

[Schwerter_105]

If we're messing with the F-106 airframe, can we get twin angled tails instead of one vertical tail?

Would that have an advantage though? I imagine if its vee-ed hard enough then it can give some pitch authority but overall it seems just not worth it

 

[BonPlan2]

Here's something mind blowing: The F-106 required only 16000 pounds of thrust to go Mach 1.5. An F-35 requires 25000 pounds to go Mach 1.2

F35 was shaped to made CAS, as a A10 and F16 (in CAS) replacement.
Lockeed Martien decided later to make it a fighter.... it has now a drag price.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would that have an advantage though? I imagine if its vee-ed hard enough then it can give some pitch authority but overall it seems just not worth it

That's to reduce side-on RCS from the Vertical Stabilizer reflection, not a maneuvering advantage.

F35 was shaped to made CAS, as a A10 and F16 (in CAS) replacement.
Lockeed Martien decided later to make it a fighter.... it has now a drag price.

The problem was the flight deck elevators on the LHAs. Those defined the size of the F-35B, and LockMart wasn't willing to make the B drastically shorter. Give the jet another meter in length and it'd be a lot faster.

 

[Schwerter_105]

That's to reduce side-on RCS from the Vertical Stabilizer reflection, not a maneuvering advantage.

Gotcha, although Im not sure how much of a different just changing the vertical tail would make if every other part of the aircraft is as-is. If we're talking about stealth-ifying the F106 as a whole while maintaining its overall configuration then that makes a lot more sense to modify the vertical stabilizer