StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lets say SAC realizes they aren't going to get the XB-70 into production and decide if nothing else they want the XF-108 in production and just barely manage to get McNamara to okay it, kicking and screaming, but it is a go.

The Best information I could find, Shep probably has better information that hasn't been shat on by McNamara morons.

In any case how would the F-108 be used and what effect would it have on future fighter development?

Also how would the USSR react to its deployment?

Discuss.

Also how would the USSR react to its deployment?

Complete T-4 trials, deploy series.

Wanderer wrote:Lets say SAC realizes they aren't going to get the XB-70 into production and decide if nothing else they want the XF-108 in production and just barely manage to get McNamara to okay it, kicking and screaming, but it is a go.

Problem is that It was killed well before Strange was in office (almost 18 months). The other problem is that the XF108 was killed before the XB-70 (this is one of the reason the Valk's price rose - the cost of the engines wasn't split anymore).

If the XF-108 is allowed to live- then I don't think we will see the F-111 developed. I also wonder how long the production would be open for.

If the Rapier lives, there's a greater chance that the Valkyrie does so as well.

Stas Bush wrote:

Also how would the USSR react to its deployment?

Complete T-4 trials, deploy series.

What was the T-4

MariusRoi wrote: Problem is that It was killed well before Strange was in office (almost 18 months). The other problem is that the XF108 was killed before the XB-70 (this is one of the reason the Valk's price rose - the cost of the engines wasn't split anymore).

The Airforce along with the slated manufacturer was trying as late as 65 to get it rolling, I use that as the basis as the WI.

Stas Bush wrote:

Also how would the USSR react to its deployment?

Complete T-4 trials, deploy series.

Why would the USSR build a medium recon/bomber aircraft as a response to the US deploying an improved continental defence interceptor? Did the T-4 even have the range to hit the continental US? Did the F-108 really make the situation for Tu-95s attempting to penetrate any worse than it already was with the F-106?

I think a fighter version of the Oxcart is more likely to have gotten in production, the F-12 would have been more likely.

Wanderer wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:

Also how would the USSR react to its deployment?

Complete T-4 trials, deploy series.

What was the T-4

What is with that nose? Is there some design advantage of having the nose point down?

Wanderer wrote:What is with that nose? Is there some design advantage of having the nose point down?

It's the same principle as the Concorde (and TU-144, thank-yuh-very-much).

The nose pivots upwards during flight, to streamline the form of the aircraft into a spear-shape.

For takeoff and landing, the nose swings down to allow the crew some forward visibility so they can see where they're going.




very pretty. Although here it's on the ground and the nose is up. Go figure.

The F-108 doesn’t make a whole lot sense without also building the B-70, and in any case it was canceled in 1959, which is before McNamaras time. Now the YF-12, that was a plane which was worth building on its own right, and in fact it reached the prototype stage of development with several missiles fired during trials (F-108 died as a mere cockpit mockup). In fact YF-12 got so far along that Congress actually appropriated money to buy the first batch of 50 production aircraft, only to have McNamara refuse to allow the money to be spent.

As for the T-4, it rightly died and would die no matter what the US does, if only for the utter stupidity of having the pilots rely on a freaking periscope for landing approaches (the nose can only be lowered at very low speed) while in regular flight the periscope had to retract and the pilots basically can’t see at all, except through overhead windows. There is also reason to believe the design was not going to be capable of its required performance of mach 2.8 cruise and mach 3 maximum speed. This performance was similar to that intended for the F-108, but inferior to the YF-12.

The response of the USSR is going to be more missile silos and SA-5 batteries.

Didn't the Tu-22 Blinder pilots use a periscope for landing approaches, too?

Why exactly is flying on radar alone bad for a supersonic bomber or penetration recon plane? Please, do tell.

If the F-108 was put in production, the Soviets would likely have invested more money in enhancing the MiG-25's performance (or even ordering the design of an entirely new interceptor) so they could keep up with the USAF (or maintain the illusion that they were).

Stas Bush wrote:Why exactly is flying on radar alone bad for a supersonic bomber or penetration recon plane?

Technical reasons: radar can be jammed or malfunction.

Psychological reasons: pilots will be VERY NERVOUS if they can't see in the direction they're going.

Well, I do know the F-108 (or the F-12, for that matter) would give the Avro Arrow conspiracy wankers (who unfortunately seem to comprise the majority of Canada's population) some more fodder, providing "evidence" that the US really was behind the cancellation. On the other hand, they would have a much harder time claiming the Arrow was "20 years ahead of it's time"

Stas Bush wrote:Why exactly is flying on radar alone bad for a supersonic bomber or penetration recon plane?

You could make the same argument for commercial airliners, which mostly rely on in instruments and autopilot even during takeoff and landing. But if those fail and you can't see where you're going, you're fucked.

Stas Bush wrote:Why exactly is flying on radar alone bad for a supersonic bomber or penetration recon plane? Please, do tell.

Instrument only flying is extremely demanding to keep up on multihour missions without respite. It makes pilots nervous, and thus more error prone, and the moving nose and retracting periscope adds a slew of new possibilities for mechanical failures that could make a landing impossible, particularly under poor conditions. Relying on radar and INS with no decent visibility could also cause navigational trouble, though that’s a lesser issue.

Course, the T-4 isn’t as bad as the short lived XF-103 which would be flown ONLY via periscope.