One of the few good uses for solid rocket motors

[GW Johnson]

Oops, got the numbers reversed. Sorry. Too much white hair.

Sidewinder was actually developed initially in somebody's garages in Ridgecrest, CA. All unofficial and off the NWC base. It actually worked great, and long before the "official" project, Sparrow, could be made to work at all.

Ultimately, both were good weapons. Sidewinder is still out there. Sparrow has been superseded by AMRAAM.

[kunkmiester]

Sidewinder hasn't changed a whole lot, just digitized and they put the maneuvering fins on the back so it would maneuver better.

I recall hearing that Sparrows were still in use as late as Kosovo--the rumor was the AIM-120 couldn't differentiate targets as well, so they used a missile that could be directed to a specific aircraft, even at long range. Important since there was civilian aircraft in the area.

[DeltaV]

Sidewinder hasn't changed a whole lot, just digitized and they put the maneuvering fins on the back so it would maneuver better.

It's also got these cool, spinning, gyroscopic cheese graters that you can use* to make tacos while waiting for a mission:

[* If a compressed air hose is available.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolleron

[GW Johnson]

Yeah, I had almost forgotten the rollerons on Sidewinder. Never thought of them as cheese graters for tacos, but I do think it would work. Silly, but fun.

[ladajo]

My personal favorite is RAM. (RIM -116). Especially the new block, it gets you out to the horizon.

[IntLibber]

The Convair F-106 was an interceptor, not a fighter. It could reach around M1.6 in level flight, but the supersonic range was very short.

Incorrect. The F-106 held the level flight speed record of mach 2.31 from 1957 until I believe 1966 when the F-4 broke it with two engines and some MIPCC cheating on the intakes. It carried three underwing fuel tanks and was used, yes, as an interceptor, because that is what it was designed for. Its weapons were held in an internal weapons bay that deployed its missiles at supersonic speeds.

This record still stands today for single engine aircraft.

Its maximum interception range with underwing tanks was 1800 miles at 650 mph, however its ferry range was 2700 miles at 610 mph. "Combat radius" without fuel tanks was 1500 miles. Significantly greater than even the modern F/A-18.

Initial climb rate at takeoff was 42,800 ft/minute.

It would cruise to intercept bomber formations at 650 mph, go into supersonic dash to launch its nuclear Genie missile at the bombers, and turn around at max speed to get as far from the nuclear flash as possible.

With external tanks dropped, any stock F-106 could reach mach 2.29.

Essentially you had to fly the range at high subsonic and accelerate to attack at the last minute. Weapons were carried in a bay, not underwing (drag too high for supersonics even in afterburn with external weapons). Those weapons were early AIM-7 Sidewinders, the Hughes GAR-something-or-other Falcon (both IR and RF guided versions), and later the AIM-9 RF-guided Sparrow. It could also carry the Genie, which was an air-to-air nuke.

Although designed more as a fighter, the F-101 Voodoo had good enough interceptor characteristics that it was actually preferred over the F-106 in the interceptor role. Much better range at higher average speeds.

F-106 was the "corrected" version of the earlier F-102 design (both delta-wing single-engine aircraft). F-102 was the same basic airplane, less capable engine. Never actually was able to go supersonic, except in a dive.

The six had its fuselage redesigned using the "area rule", which gave it the coke bottle look that the 102 did not have. That is why the 102 couldn't go supersonic in level flight.

BTW, Mig-25 Foxbat was an interceptor, not a fighter at all. No internal weapons, pylon carry only. Clean, its top speed was reported variously as M3.2 to 3.5. I tend to favor the 3.5 figure. Trouble is, it was placarded to M2.8 max due to aeroheat and vibration problems with external stores under the wings. Between that and its short range, it really wasn't the fearsome weapon many think. Plus, the engine life was very short: about 500 hours max. Most of the time, far less than that.

Mig-25 was the counter to the M3-3.2 XB-70 we decided not to produce as an operational bomber. Mig-25 intercept of B-70 would have been problematical at best, at no more speed than the target bomber, and well nigh impossible carrying any weapons. Its most memorable service was setting speed and altitude records as the EA-166, in competition with our SR-71.

Yeah. The foxbat's primary distinction from the F-15 is the lower wing area, which reduced drag considerably.

BTW: The F-15 could go much faster than the 2.5 it is specced at. I have seen them return to base often with the mach meter pegged at 3.2 (it has a needle that sticks at the maximum speed attained until it is reset). We used them in the interceptor role in the mid to late 1980's in my FIS unit at McChord AFB, intercepting Bear bombers coming down the coast from Alaska to pick up spy burst transmissions from silicon valley further down the coast. They stopped doing that when we were authorized to splash a few. The Bears didn't start flying again off our coast until Putin got into office.

Carrying four Sidewinders and four sparrows, with three drop tanks, we'd have two on alert in the barn at McChord and another two down in Portland. Our planes would be guided to intercepts by the scope dopes at the Northwest Sector Command bunker at the same base.

[GW Johnson]

I didn't realize the F-106 was that fast, although I knew its delta wing was swept for something in the vicinity of Mach 2-ish. Back then, speeds were held closer to the chest. You boys who actually flew that stuff would know details like that better than me. I built the weapons they carried.

Now that you mention it, I do recall the coke-bottle shape on the -106. The -105 was the example best known to the public. Its coke-bottle shape was really pronounced. It gets spread out along more fuselage with a delta, makes it less noticeable.

[kunkmiester]

My personal favorite is RAM. (RIM -116). Especially the new block, it gets you out to the horizon.

RAM isn't air launched last I heard though--it's a CIWS for ships.

rollerons I think have always been on the Sidewinder. Not sure how they do it now, since the rear fins are the ones that move on the AIM-9X, but I'm sure they have a way.

[93143]

Its maximum interception range with underwing tanks was 1800 miles at 650 mph, however its ferry range was 2700 miles at 610 mph. "Combat radius" without fuel tanks was 1500 miles. Significantly greater than even the modern F/A-18.

Those combat ranges sound like total flight ranges, not combat radius figures. Strengthening this interpretation is the observation that the quoted ferry range with external tanks is significantly less than twice the internal-fuel combat "radius". (And the fact that the numbers are extremely high compared with any other aircraft of comparable size.)

Also, everywhere else I've seen those kinds of numbers, they've been called range, not radius.

A more plausible number for (subsonic) combat radius is 575 miles (500 nm). Sources differ as to whether external tanks were involved; one source lists 365 statute miles on internal fuel and 575 with drop tanks, though it should be noted that a short supersonic dash was said to be included.

[ladajo]

My personal favorite is RAM. (RIM -116). Especially the new block, it gets you out to the horizon.

RAM isn't air launched last I heard though--it's a CIWS for ships.

rollerons I think have always been on the Sidewinder. Not sure how they do it now, since the rear fins are the ones that move on the AIM-9X, but I'm sure they have a way.

Did not say it was. In any event, whilst we muse over missiles, I do like RAM. It is a cobble together from AIM9 and Stinger. Works great.
And it actually comes in a standalone mount version now like you noted, using a CIWS Chassis and Search and Track System.

[IntLibber]

Its maximum interception range with underwing tanks was 1800 miles at 650 mph, however its ferry range was 2700 miles at 610 mph. "Combat radius" without fuel tanks was 1500 miles. Significantly greater than even the modern F/A-18.

Those combat ranges sound like total flight ranges, not combat radius figures. Strengthening this interpretation is the observation that the quoted ferry range with external tanks is significantly less than twice the internal-fuel combat "radius". (And the fact that the numbers are extremely high compared with any other aircraft of comparable size.)

Also, everywhere else I've seen those kinds of numbers, they've been called range, not radius.

A more plausible number for (subsonic) combat radius is 575 miles (500 nm). Sources differ as to whether external tanks were involved; one source lists 365 statute miles on internal fuel and 575 with drop tanks, though it should be noted that a short supersonic dash was said to be included.

Ferry range includes carrying full stores and fuel tanks.

The 575 mile range is only for the B model, the two seater, which got the second seat at the expense of a lot of internal fuel capacity.

[93143]

That doesn't address the issue. You claim a 1500-mile combat radius on internal fuel, which is frankly preposterous.

(And, to reiterate, ferry range at optimum speed pretty much has to be substantially more than double the combat radius, which should have already tipped you off that your numbers are screwy...)

Do you have a reliable source for these numbers?

Was it this?

How about this, which assigns that combat radius to the A variant (ie: the basic interceptor)?

You don't get a 62% reduction in range from adding a copilot.

What about this?

Then there's this, which indicates a target of 430 miles and an achieved value of 490 miles, but doesn't specify conditions...

This indicates a 1500-mile range, which is plausible. A 1500-mile combat radius is not plausible.

Wikipedia indicates an 1800-mile range, but this obviously shouldn't be given any more weight than any other website...

[Betruger]

WPedia's ref for that is:
Loftin, L.K, Jr. "Quest for performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft." NASA SP-468
link takes you here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm

[93143]

Thanks. That source says 1809 miles ferry range. I don't see any other range numbers, though I suppose one could attempt to calculate them...

[DeltaV]

How about this...

AI upset recovery... how cool!

The aircraft on display at The Air Force Museum (S/N 58-0787) was involved in an unusual incident. During a training mission from Malmstrom AFB on February 2, 1970, it suddenly (NOT ALL THAT SUDDEN!) entered an uncontrollable flat spin forcing the pilot to eject. Unpiloted, the aircraft recovered on its own, apparently due to the balance and configuration changes, caused by the ejection, and miraculously made a gentle belly landing in a snow-covered field near Big Sandy, Montana. After minor repairs, the aircraft was returned to service. It last served with the 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron before being brought to the Museum in August 1986.