You could see an F-86, with a pair of AIM-95s which is practically as good.
4 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…
1 Like
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?
2 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?
1 Like
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.
thats not proof
Well, If we can go back to being on topic, it seems that in game AIM-4F/G are lacking about 40% thrust from the initial booster phase.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c5kynb1a0iH6
And on another note, it seems that on some shots both missiles starts weaving up and down when it starts getting close to the target, and ends up missing a target entirely even though it was targeting it perfectly? Wouldn’t be a problem if it had a proxy fuse, but with a contact fuse the guidance can’t make errors like that, maybe it should have a damping factor that increases with time of flight, or increases as indicated airspeed goes down.
4 Likes
I can’t believe I actually managed to predict this exact bomb on the F-106 fiasco when talking with a friend lol
6 Likes