so 4 falcons and an atomic sledgehammer of a missile?
Yep. And your two SUU-16s, if you want some extra firepower. Do note that the AIM-26A was the nuclear option and the AIM-26B was the conventional one.
2 Likes
yeah i know, but a 250 ton warhead isnt that bad tbh. nowhere near the AIR-2’s 1.25 kilotons
the double miniguns are pretty sweet too
Threw together a quick and dirty potential loadout chart for the F-102, if it came to the game. There’s obviously loads of loadouts possible with all the different combination of weapons, but here’s what each of the three weapons bays AND the two external pylons can hold (to my knowledge).
6 Likes
How well do the Aim-4s perform?
This topic isn’t exactly the place to ask, but you can ask on this AIM-4/AIM-26 discussion topic.
2 Likes
If you’d like, you can make a forum suggestion for a vehicle you like. Just follow the guidelines and rules, and find some basic sources.
The ones carried by this vehicle are the Aim-4A and Aim-4D.
The Aim-4A is radar guided and has a pulse seeker head, and as such can be fooled by just one chaff. It also has a G limit below 16Gs, which ain’t much but it can be good enough in some situations. Decent missile for unsuspecting targets or those without RWRs/CMs.
The Aim-4D is a IR guided missile, and can pull around or below 20Gs. It also has a really high gimble limit. Decent seeker capabilities, decent missile.
The main drawback of this missile is its lack of a proxy fuse, it has to directly hit the target to explode. If it doesn’t, it just straight up misses and does nothing.
As stated above, you can use a thread dedicated to talking about/discussing the missile and the capabilities of each variant.
2 Likes
It looks like we talk about 2 different things:
You talk about the AIM-26A (1961-1971 SARH missile with a 0,25 kt warhead ) - and i was clearly referring to the Hughes MA-1 fire control system which was able to perform a fully automated interception process whilst the plane was previously guided by SAGE using the AIR-2 Genie with a 1,5 kt warhead:
The F-106A operated in conjunction with the SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) network linked via the Hughes MA-1 fire-control system to the F-106. It operated by plotting the course needed to intercept an enemy aircraft, automatically sighted the target, fired the air-to-air missiles, and then automatically placed the F-106 on the correct course to disengage. The F-106 could actually be fully computer-flown during most of its mission, the pilot being needed only for takeoff, landing, or in case something went wrong with the automation.
So even if the AIR-2 is technically seen just a unguided rocket - the creation of such an automated process with technology of the 1950s and being able to bring a 1.5 kiloton warhead close to expected bomber formations (whilst using a computer with a reported weight of 275 metric tons) is outstanding.
The fact that the nuclear armed AIM-26A was phased out in 1971 whilst the AIR-2 remained in US service until 1988 is just a sidenote:
Summary
While in service with the U.S. Air Force, the Genie was carried operationally on the F-89 Scorpion, F-101B Voodoo, and the F-106 Delta Dart. While the Genie was originally intended to be carried by the F-104 Starfighter using a unique ‘trapeze’ launching rail, the project never proceeded beyond the testing phase. Convair offered an upgrade of the F-102 Delta Dagger that would have been Genie-capable, but it too was not adopted. Operational use of the Genie was discontinued in 1988 with the retirement of the F-106 interceptor.
The only other Genie user was Canada, whose CF-101 Voodoos carried Genies until 1984 via a dual-key arrangement where the missiles were kept under United States custody, and released to Canada under circumstances requiring their use.[2] The RAF briefly considered the missile for use on the English Electric Lightning.
3 Likes
Not sure about the Ju287 area being common knowledge but I totally dig on the F-106 Wicky-dude. It would also be totally awesome cool to have the Genie, oh for sure, lol. Totally gag me with a tactical nuke - hang loose fellow SoCal bro 😁🐌
2 Likes
Most missiles in-game already score impacts. It’s such a non-issue it’s not even worth bringing up.
2 Likes
+1 especially if it comes with the gunpods.
1 Like
F-106s post Project Six Shooter could replace their Genie bay with a fixed M61A1. This wasn’t done to all of them, but it also added a gunsight.
As for the missiles, we already have aircraft that rely entirely on missiles for combat. The Sea Vixen and all top tier aircraft in 99% of situations will only ever use missiles. The 102 (and 106) would be no different.
1 Like
Well that’s not an Air to Air Missile, it’s a time-fused, unguided rocket. AIR stands for Air Intercept Rocket.
1 Like
i dont think the genie could be added into the game, so i think fixed vulcan would do
The Genie wouldn’t be all that effective. No impact or proxmity fuse, so any kills would be down to the pilot’s skill. Against aircraft it was only deadly in a ~600m radius or so, and gaijin won’t add any of the features of its FCS that allowed it to be deployed accurately.
And that’s all for the 106, this suggestion is on the 102 which was never fitted with any guns, aside from one time with the 7.62 gunpods.
1 Like
i mean, imagine people using it in grb to errase the teams there
those gun pods are fine then, its ok with me
Trying to nitpick is pointless:
1 Like
It’s still a time-fused rocket with no fragmentation whatsoever. You’d have to be very lucky or very skilled to use it, and its effectiveness would be much lower than against aircraft.
1 Like
1.5kt is 300 times the FAB-5000. Pressure damage alone would be devastating. The FAB has an armour destruction radius of 105m, using the inverse-square law we can approximate the kill radius as 1.8km. Against aircraft even larger.
Dunno where this 300m number is coming from, but 301m sure as hell ain’t safe by any sense of the word. There’s a reason the missile only became armed after burnout at 10km and the 106 had to turn and run the moment of launch to escape the blast.
1 Like