and how is that supposed to work if the bombs arent falling nose first due to them tumbeling around in the air while being attached to the pylon
It’s not, mounting something doesn’t necessarily mean it can be used.
Hardpoints may be compatible with rails and pylons, but if the aircraft isn’t designed to use them or have them functionally integrated, it can’t use them. The only exception being if attempt to make it usable were made, and changes are wiring were added, but this isn’t the case. You could theoretically mount some modern missiles on really old outdated aircraft given the rails and missile are capable of being used together, it doesn’t mean the aircraft is able to use the munition.
Another issue with this is that there’s only images (and we know it’s because it was all for the sake of a joke), which are a single secondary source. You’d need two secondary sources or a single primary source at the minimum stating the ability to use bombs if you want gaijin to add that capability ingame.
As for the underwing Aim-4s or Aim-26s, go ahead and bug report them, they are compatible with the aircraft (assuming the F-106 that tested them is no different from the one represented ingame ofc, such as with experimental wiring which I doubt is the case, but regardless be prepared for it to be “passed as a suggestion” and nothing comes of it).
3 Likes
Except there is no modification required, as already stated, you just need to attach the existing mounts, your only requirement for your quote on quote “field modification” is the bombs / MERs themselves.
I would hope the plane that you are flying reaches a speed of 150 knots to arm them given that airspeed requirement is the ground safety, they arm as you fly, not as they fall. That feature exists to prevent some idiot smacking the bomb while on the tarmac and causing it to go off.
As already stated I am operating off of the exact wording Smin has given, the aircraft is “technically compatible” of such and thus adheres to gaijin’s stance on the subject.
There is no need for wiring or changes to use said ord as already previously proven, there is nothing stopping a F-106 currently from mounting and delivering a MK84 or a similar 30 inch lug equipped piece of ord beyond doctrine.
Except that dumb gravity bombs and missiles are fundamentally different systems with different requirements, a MK8X bomb only requires a means of carriage and a means of release to be deployed, the F-106 in it’s current state achieves both requirements to deploy said munitions.
So thats the thing, there are no sources that support the Swiss F/A-18s being able to employ or equip a majority of their ordinance as the Swiss government did not procure such ord, gaijin instead inferred, due to certain systems not being omitted from the Swiss bid, that such ord would still function onboard the aircraft.
Incedently the most realistic weapon addition currently available to the Swiss hornets are their JDAMs for the sole reason they employ the same requirements, for standard use, as the normally dumb MK8X series, with only a carriage requirement and release requirement for deployment, this is also why the F-15C MSIP is able to employ ER JDAMs while never being wired or equipped for handoff with such weapons.
Once again, “technically compatible” is all that matters today to gaijin, and that is the measure I am following.
wait so i wont see a Sabre with the Aim-9X?
thats tragic
2 Likes
unironically that would be a good event
old jet/aircraft platforms theoretical/artificial upgrade vs modern fighters
There is no point in bug reporting the underwing missiles, and even though there are pictures and it shows them on the video that demonstrates the helmet mounted sight, the bug report was rejected because according to gaijin that only counts as proof that the plane carried the missiles, not that it could use them Community Bug Reporting System. Yes I know that sounds incredibly stupid since the whole point of testing something is to see if it works rather to ferry it around (and to be fair their next argument that the modification doesn’t apply to the HMS plane is much better), but you’ve gotta understand that’s their way of saying “we like what it has now and don’t want to change it, if it needed change we would have no problem giving it stuff that never existed”.
As for the underwing mounted bombs, consider that back then if you wanted something done you could just ask the mechanics there to do it and get the paperwork done after, if you felt like it. Saying X plane couldn’t drop bombs because it wasn’t built for that is absurd when you have planes like the F105 that was gradually modified into a bomb truck with external hardpoints, despite starting out as a low level nuclear bomber that carried the payload inside an internal bay. Field technicians could have added wiring for the F106 to drop bombs from the wing hardpoints, much like robin olds ordered his squadron to rewire his F-4s to be able to use sidewinders instead of falcons, or some guys added Suu-11 gunpods to their F-102s, both jobs far more daunting than simple bomb racks, and yet both were used operationally.
But back to the Falcons, and to reply to zennafrancy12, I would say that the reason they put a dual thrust motor was to sacrifice peak speed to maximize range and maneuverability with the little delta-v the missiles had available. It’s a visible tradeoff if you compare the smc of the aim-4g with the aim-4d, and it pays off better when launched at high altitudes and supersonic speeds (maybe that’s why they are called super falcons…). Can’t blame them for not designing missiles to be OP in a game where you can see a big red missile warning when they are approaching.
I do wonder if the extra initial speed of the AIM-4D’s would make them feel better to use than the AIM-4Gs for the average warthunder player, though.
PS. I’m now confused, was the aim-4D designed before or after the AIM-4G? Because apparently it went into service after the 4G and uses the same seeker, but uses the earlier chassis and rocket motor. Maybe they had spare GAR-2 missiles that were about to be discarded and decided to recycle them for a profit…
2 Likes
(which the Six wasn’t modified to do)
As BasherBenDawg8 said, just putting things on any old plane doesn’t prove it could actually use them. Equating a prank job with functional equipment is ridiculous.
From that picture you posted:
“No bombs could be carried on the TER as the F-102A did not have the wiring to drop bombs.”
A lot was carried over from the 102 to 106, and I doubt this would change. Plus, this configuration was never flown because they quickly realized how little firepower they were actually adding.
3 Likes
No, but you can see a Sabre with AIM-95 TVC missiles. And an F9F-8. And a F-8 with them. And F-14 but that’s less funny than the older jets.
You could see an F-86, with a pair of AIM-95s which is practically as good.
5 Likes
Correct, modifications could be made, but they weren’t. Unless you can prove wiring was present, which if anything the image/source you’ve provided proves the opposite given it states the lack of systems on the aircraft’s predecessor, then it couldn’t realistically be added sadly.
I get why you’d think that, but modifications would need to be made to the aircraft to allow for the usage of unguided bombs. It’s not as simple as pressing a button like you think it is, and that button is for jettisoning the stores on the wing hardpoints such as drop tanks or attached pylons. The bombs wouldn’t be able to be armed on this aircraft as no modifications have been made for their usage, and they wouldn’t be able to be properly deployed from the aircraft as mentioned earlier, since you’d literally be jettisoning the entire pylon at once with 6 unarmed bombs strapped to each one.
I believe you’re mis-interpreting this, as there’s no proof GP bombs are “technically compatible” with the F-106A, only proof they can be mounted via pylons. The specific quote you’re using is referencing an aircraft which has armament options present in its arsenal ingame only because the same identical aircraft in service with other countries used or tested them, or because they’re outright known to be completely compatible with the aircraft, and the only reason they “shouldn’t have them” is because the country never operated the aircraft with such weaponry or didn’t own such weapons. A specific example could be that the AGM-65D being present on the IAF F-15I, seeing as its compatible with the systems, the base aircraft variant it derived from used them, and the rails are in use (same thing goes for the F-4E Kurnass 2000, as the base aircraft is compatible with the AGM-65A/B, and the AGM-65D is backwards compatible).
Allow me to conclude this topic for you by asking for a statement from a technical moderator.
@Gunjob can you please specify if an aircraft that was seen mounting weapons can receive them ingame solely because they were mounted to the aircraft via a pylon attached to a hardpoint? In this specific instance not only was it historically known to have been mounted as a joke, but there no sources anywhere that indicate wiring or systems to properly arm and deliver the munitions were present on the aircraft. I am able to reasonably conclude there is a lack of sufficient evidence here, but I think having your input to conclude this conversation is for the best. Thanks in advance if you can find the time to reply, really appreciate it!
2 Likes
There were certainly efforts undertaken by Convair in order to investigate the potential of a Fighter-Bomber conversion for the F-102 / F-106. So as to say no developmental flights or modifications were undertaken can’t be certain.
(and procedures were developed for MB-1 Genie for use against Surface targets, so it would at least one option).
1 Like
We can be certain, unless information suggesting otherwise can be presented, but as far as I’m aware no information exists. Other than speculation based on suggested “investigative efforts”, no proof exists suggesting modifications were ever made.
It has nothing to do with wiring and systems for the underwing hardpoints however (but this is an interesting proposition I was unaware of). Not to mention the information you present shows new systems would have to be installed for payload delivery of those bombs, and modifications to the internal bay would need to be done. Can you show me if any such modifications were ever even preformed, as it seems this was simply a proposal and remained as such? Procedures developed for a hypothetical modification that never took place would ultimately mean nothing.
The capability was never removed but the f-102 and f-106 never had it in the first place, so your argument is a strawman
1 Like
Weapons in WT fall into two categories:
Service weapons that were actually integrated and cleared.
Prototype/test weapons that were documented in trials.
The F-106 “bomb rack” setup was neither, it was a joke fit with no wiring or delivery systems. As such it wouldn’t be considered as an additional option for the F-106.
5 Likes
In that case, can we fit 2 extra j85 engines under the wings? It’s well documented and tried on the F106B nasa testbed. Although it wouldn’t probably count as weapons…
2 Likes
Remind me why this conversation is taking place in a thread about the AIM-4 Falcon, rather than in a thread about the F-106?
3 Likes
Yes, “stores” 30 inch lug stores to be precise, the standard carriage type of the MK8X series.
For the third time now, for the M904 fuse, all that is required to arm the bomb during flight is sufficient airflow across the vanes of the bomb, you don’t need to modify the F-106 to make air flow faster.
Mounted, armed and dropped.
This mythical wiring once more.
The only requirement to deploy a MK8X is the correct carriage lugs and a means to release the bomb, the F-106 already has both requirements.
So we can go about removing al the US only weapons present on the Swiss hornets as they were never cleared for Swiss service, or removing the ER JDAMs and JDAMs from the MSIP, F-2 ADTW and so on? The former aircraft have not been proven to have the required integrated systems onboard, such is inferred.
Once again with people going back to this mysterious “wiring” requirement, as already stated, for a MK8X with a M904 fuse, all you need is a means to carry the bomb, the F-106 has the ability to carry said bomb on it’s outboard racks, and release the bomb, the tank jettison button releases the two carriage lugs present on those outboard racks, thus releasing the bombs.
The M904 arms while under airflow above 150 knots while on the aircraft, the F-106 is able to exceed 150 knots, thus, the only fusing requirement beyond the ground crew enabling the fuse prior to takeoff is met. Even for newer MK8X fuses like the Mk 339 Mod 1, the only thing stopping the fuse from arming is a wire that is strung to a point on the rack and simply requires the wire being pulled off of the fuse to arm it, and such can be accomplished simply by the bomb falling off of the aircraft and by taping the wire to the hardpoint.
So there is a means to arm the bomb, carry the bomb, and release the bomb from the aircraft, that sounds like deployment to me.
prove it
2 Likes
-F-18C is known to have these capabilities
-Switzerland did not remove them, therefore they are fair game
F-2 is also compatible with all of these.
By this metric we could probably put IRIS-Ts on the F-106 too, someone get in on it quick. Gotta make it as fictional and ahistorical as possible.
Why do you even want bombs on the 106? Would it kill you to go five minutes without base bombing?
2 Likes
My man cannot scroll down a few lines in the same post.
That was not the quote -
They were never integrated into Swiss hornets not cleared for service within the Schweizer Luftwaffe as Switzerland never procured said weapons.
You cant integrate or clear for service a weapon you do not own or operate.
However it was not “integrated and cleared” on the ADTW variant we have as the J/AAQ-2 lacks the ability to generate a GPS track as it cannot compute range, and the ADTW that is present is not a upgraded model with JDAM capabilities, something that was added post introduction into service along with the Sniper ATP and AAM-4, yet the F-2A ADTW sports JDAMs. Reminder the F-2A ADTW we have in game is 63-8502, the second F-2A produced, preceded only by the prototype, 63-8501.
Ah yes, add in a missile that lacks any form of mounting onto the aircraft in the first place unlike the MK8X series which is compatible with the existing, standardized mounting lugs on the wings, that requires no outside interaction from the aircraft to arm beyond gravity, and can be released with a existing button already onboard, what a very nice strawman.
2 MK84s won’t kill a base so its not worth using in ARB to begin with, but go off.