Still doubt it?
1 Like
searching by “nuclear”
1st doc:
part-7 : MB-1 “genie”
Part-9 : GAR-11 for F-102B
part11 : talks of nuclear environnement for F-102A electronic devices
part 13 : F-102 nuclear falcon /// Genie rocket /// Reason why F-102 were mades (threats of nuclear bombs)
2nd document:
part9 :
1- talking of IR seeker, which shall not see nuclear weapon to avoid going blind
2- talking of russian ekranoplane threat
3- talking of using conventionnal weapon instead of nuclear weapon
4/5/6/7/8/9- F-102B nuclear guided rocket
still not a single information giving F-106A any credit for the use of AIM-26 missiles (be it A or B)
yes, i’m doubting it because:
GAR-X doesn’t refer to AIM-26 or GAR-11
GAR-X in 1956 refer to XGAR5/6 program which started in 1956, and those are predecessors of GAR-11 program.
2 Likes
Very likely cancelled early on, F-106’s internal bays were smaller than 102’s so AIM-26s could not be fitted.
102 itself could only fit AIM-26 by deletion of the FFAR tubes.
1 Like
Depends, there are claims that they were trialed externally, shortly before the AIM-97, but I’ve not seen any proof of said claims.
Though the AIM-97 does also remain an option.
The anti-satellite missile was just a mockup, never functional.
1 Like
the AIM-97 never get to service because of the IR seeker being too bad.
but in WT, it would be a “One Flare” or “Sun Flare” decoyed missile
all the other data are kinda known about AIM-97, so it’s possible, but likely worse than AIM-4F/G missiles
It’s a (further) modified AGM-78, no reason why it wouldn’t be functional, there are claims that the AIM-97 was flight tested, though sure the specific image might be of an inert booster as it is blue.
it’s stats are known, the SM-2 (AGM78-D) is present on the USS Douglas, so there’s a good idea of it characteristics especially against aircraft.
AGM-78 is entirely SARH guided =/= AIM-97 using an IR seeker in terminal approach
the AGM-78 is already said to have a low quality seeker (as SARH)
AIM-97 likely kept the SARH guidance until reaching IR seeking approach.
but the IR seeker have been reported to go to the sun after loosing the target
During trials “Bomarc” missile was used to simulate MiG-25, but flown badly making it to tumble around, and made the AIM-97 to loose IR track.
Then the AIM-97 went to track the sun instead
=> this IR seeker, which is not in WT, will likely be easy to flare off, or to counter by flying to the sun.
Uhhh no, the starm straight up used the basic shrike seeker, its not at all SARH.
Even in the case of the RIM-66B which both were based off of, it used command guidance until it terminaled with SARH, and the RIM-66B was proven to be effective against all manner of targets, it was anything but a low quality seeker.
The IR seeker was it’s terminal guidance, the RIM-66B did not use SARH during flight, it was command guided or pre-loaded with turn commands from the tarter system (Modern FCRs were command guided, like the Ticonderogas and any ships with the NTU), so its very easily safe to assume that given both the SARH and IR guidance was only used during the terminal phase, that both missiles, the RIM-66B and AIM-97 would be command guided during flight, as that was their standard form of operation.
In theory you can run the missile as SARH right off the rail, but the standard missile seeker was more than capable of splashing even very small missiles so there would be no need for a IR seeker in the first place if it was using such.
The AGM-78 was passive radar homing off the rail as it used the AGM-45 shrike’s seeker, it’s form of guidance is irrelevant in this situation as it is fundamentally different.
i might be stupid on the AGM-78 (since it’s an ARM it’s tracks active radar in front of him, and do follow a guiding beam),… but that’s black on white about the AIM-97:
So the early flight is done by SARH seeker - terminal flight is done by IR
Da yis, wikipedia.
The Douglas “SM-2” is modelled as an ATGM (because the real Douglas missile was an ARM) so wouldn’t be too sure you could draw much from that. It’s basically a fantasy missile.
Its not even a SM-2 or SM-1, its a RIM-24A Tartar, yes the standard missiles are quite similar but its still different, it is indeed not a bad baseline as it is accurate until the MR and ER SM series missiles.
That and its currently modeled the same as all the other command LOS (/SACLOS) guided SAMs, such a mode of guidance was offered for the RIM-24A and was something the tartar fire control system was capable of. However of course the Douglas lacks and sort of fire control system period, such is also a issue for the AGM-78 off of the same ship.
The Douglas could fire any standard missile available at the time, it would just need a external means of guidance / target finding, and that includes the AGM-78 that it was “designed” to use.
Tl:dr; it’s complete nonsense. One of the most embarrassing modelling failures in the game, an impossible missile in a pay-to-win wrapper.
It doesn’t need one the RGM-66D (AGM-78D seeker, backported to the RIM-66 airframe) is a Sea to Surface Anti-Radiation missile, not a SARH it supposed to home in on a target’s emissions.
Pretty sure that the Douglas’s missiles also used the Standard ARM’s model on the dev server, which is accurate.
In theory yes in practice no. Yes the AGM-78 is functionally free to work as fit off the rail and you can do that, the issue is that the program the Douglas was involved in always used a third party vessel for target finding, the ships themselves only had systems in place to direct the 76mm, the best the Douglas could do would be just fire the AGM-78s mad dog forward of the ship which is far from optimal.
And as you stated the AGM-78 is based upon the RGM-66 series which is noted for the ability to be pre-briefed prior to launch by a FCS, this is the purpose of the third party vessel as it would feed the Douglas like ship target data, from which the Douglas like would receive and then launch the missile at the target via the data received, the missile would of course go active and search for said radar emission like a normal ARM at a distance determined by the third party FCS within the pre-brief.
Not just model, were full bore Starms with a unique stat line but no seeker, said missiles vanished once the RIM-24As were added sadly, although with ARMs on the horizon there might be a chance they could be making a return soon.
then give us better source to believe what you’re expecting us think about.
the question today is about adding AIM-97 to the F-106 (and not some Anti radiation or Surface launched missiles from a ship).