Joined: June 18th, 2015, 7:51 am

August 10th, 2018, 3:54 am #31

IcelofAngeln wrote: F6D Missileer. Slow, unmaneuverable "arsenal plane" designed to stand off and launch a bunch of BVR missiles-- which didn't work most of the time.
The F6D drawing on Wiki looks (to me anyway) a bit like an A6 Intruder. 
Quote
Like
Share

ADP
Joined: July 13th, 2012, 3:42 pm

August 10th, 2018, 4:02 am #32

DCJ wrote:
Dave AAA wrote: The 104 was in RCAF/CF service considerably longer than the Sabre.  

Sabre squadrons averaged about 2.3 Class A accidents per year.  CF-104 squadrons averaged about 1.2.
Again, you’re deliberately ignoring the much larger number of Sabres involved.  So far as I can tell, the RCAF typically operated 12 squadrons of Sabres.  With the Starfighter, the RCAF started at 8 squadrons, then went to 6, then from 1970, only operated 3.
One of the reasons for reducing the number of CF-104 squadrons was the projected end of their nuclear strike role in January 1972.  There were certainly enough to equip other squadrons had the requirement existed - 22 surplus CF-104 were sold to Denmark, and another 13 went to Norway.  As well, CF-5A aircraft were earmarked for Europe had the situation called for them.  Two squadrons deployed to Europe for a month of operational training in October 1970.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

August 10th, 2018, 4:44 am #33

Mostly it was because the Trudeau government wanted to cut defence spending including the Canadian contribution to NATO as well as denuclearize.  The brigade group, for instance, lost about two thousand men including an infantry battalion, the nuclear armed rockets, and a tank squadron (company). 

As a result  the formation went from being an important part of the BAOR to a reserve role in Southern Germany.  They also wanted to replace the early fifties vintage Centurions with Scorpions.  The NATO reaction to this was such that the Scorpions were not acquired and the Cents soldiers on a few more years before pressure forced them to buy Leopards.
Quote
Like
Share

DCJ
Joined: May 7th, 2006, 1:06 am

August 10th, 2018, 5:01 am #34

Dave AAA wrote:
DCJ wrote:
Again, you’re deliberately ignoring the much larger number of Sabres involved.  So far as I can tell, the RCAF typically operated 12 squadrons of Sabres.  With the Starfighter, the RCAF started at 8 squadrons, then went to 6, then from 1970, only operated 3.
No,  i took that into consideration.  Eleven squadrons for ten years and two for a further seven.  The 104's had eight squadrons for three years, six for three more, then three for sixteen - all give or take a year.  Add up the squadrons, add up years per squadron, and divide by number if accidents.  I am assuming about the same number of aircraft per squadron flying about the same number of hours. Now, if you do happen the gave the actual RCAF and CF Class A accident rates by aircraft, I would be certainly interested indeed to see them.
You are correct.  You did take that into consideration.  Nevertheless, I don’t think that’s a useful metric. Accidents per 100,000 flight hours seems to be the accepted metric.

More to the point, I dispute the premise that the Starfighter was as safe as a Sabre, or anywhere close.
Last edited by DCJ on August 10th, 2018, 5:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:53 pm

August 10th, 2018, 5:14 am #35

Phoenix04 wrote:
IcelofAngeln wrote: F6D Missileer. Slow, unmaneuverable "arsenal plane" designed to stand off and launch a bunch of BVR missiles-- which didn't work most of the time.
The F6D drawing on Wiki looks (to me anyway) a bit like an A6 Intruder.
The thread title is "Worst fighters in US service post ww2."

Note the "IN US SERVICE" part - since no F6D was ever built, not even a prototype, it fails the "in service" part and is disqualified.
There it is... the District of Columbia! You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2015, 2:58 am

August 10th, 2018, 6:31 am #36

Phoenix04 wrote:
IcelofAngeln wrote: F6D Missileer. Slow, unmaneuverable "arsenal plane" designed to stand off and launch a bunch of BVR missiles-- which didn't work most of the time.
The F6D drawing on Wiki looks (to me anyway) a bit like an A6 Intruder. 
It was derived from the Douglas F3D Skyknight, which was yet again another slow, not very nimble, naval night fighter.

The F-111B probably would have also made for a decent naval bomber, or strike aircraft; it has the right heritage behind it to make for a good bomber. Probably bump the A-6 Intruder off the carrier deck, and have a CV deck full of F-111B's, F-4's and A-7's as the primary carrier strike assets.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 25th, 2004, 12:37 pm

August 10th, 2018, 4:28 pm #37

The A-5 was designed to drop nukes. Thats it. It dropped a bomb out of a rear door. They were all converted to the RA-5C. Four hard points for drop tanks. If they haf been rewired to drop bombs it would have been interesting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

Ride Lyft.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2011, 1:26 am

August 10th, 2018, 6:03 pm #38

seasick.warships1discussionboards wrote: The A-5 was designed to drop nukes. Thats it. It dropped a bomb out of a rear door. They were all converted to the RA-5C. Four hard points for drop tanks. If they haf been rewired to drop bombs it would have been interesting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
Technically it could carry one MK83 or MK84 on one pylon per wing. Pretty weak gruel even compared to the F-111A.
"That's Mr. Esquimaux Savage to you"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 8th, 2015, 8:26 am

August 10th, 2018, 7:14 pm #39

The A-5 Vigilante is a curious case of too much plane for the job. When you consider that the might F-15E started life as the F-15A, IMO it is clear the Vigilante could have been adapted into a plethora of different roles. But it was already on deck with F-4s and A-6s and such, so why bother? But when I think of wasted potential and the A-5, it's not in the bombing arena, for which certainly quite a bit was left on the table...
[+] spoiler
 
(Just imagine decent bombloadx2 more pylons and a centerline rack)

...but rather in the fighter one.
[+] spoiler
 
(the proposed NR-349 Vigilante-based interceptor)

Rather like an F-15E going the opposite direction to the F-15C. I have my doubts this aircraft would have been more of a maintenance nightmare than the Tomcat, but with a bigger wing and more thrust than the F-4 the A-5 was already known for getting onto the tails of F-8 Crusaders and staying there despite best efforts. If tweaked for maneuvering, you know given a bubble canopy and perhaps stronger airframe, I think even three engines is a better plan than swing wings. YMMV
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

August 10th, 2018, 10:07 pm #40

bager1968 wrote:
Phoenix04 wrote:
IcelofAngeln wrote: F6D Missileer. Slow, unmaneuverable "arsenal plane" designed to stand off and launch a bunch of BVR missiles-- which didn't work most of the time.
The F6D drawing on Wiki looks (to me anyway) a bit like an A6 Intruder.
The thread title is "Worst fighters in US service post ww2."

Note the "IN US SERVICE" part - since no F6D was ever built, not even a prototype, it fails the "in service" part and is disqualified.
Then I'll have to fall back on the Gutless Cutlass.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share