After the F-4E …..Perhaps the F-101 Voodoo Line?

[Kalasnkova74]

Considering HBs extensive research and work on the McDonnell Douglas F-4E (and upcoming Naval versions), has Heatblur considered taking on the F-101B Voodoo down the road? 

While it wouldn’t give MiG-29s fits, an F-101B would be fun to fly as a long range interceptor and would be a proper challenge to fly (hello pitch-up) . With Heatblur’s familiarity with McDonnell Douglas systems they’d be able to transfer much knowledge gained from the Phantom II to such a aircraft. Of course , that project would need to wait in priority behind other efforts such as the next Phantom II variants plus the EF2000 & A-6.

[primus_TR]

Anything from the 60s and 70s would be a first-day prepurchase for me. 

[diego999]

Oh I would love to fly the Voodoo, but I think it would be kinda difficult to sell.

[Kalasnkova74]

7 minutes ago, diego999 said:

Oh I would love to fly the Voodoo, but I think it would be kinda difficult to sell.

The DCS business case depends on the variant. The F-101B shouldn’t be an issue, being the most produced version & flown by Canada & the U.S. Sure it can’t out turn a MiG, but then neither can the F-4.

The RF-101 wouldn’t have a business case since Recce aircraft don’t have a role yet, but the early cannon armed F-101A & F-101C fighter bombers would sell well. 

[Oldcrow Jr. 62]

Personally, I"d like to see a realistic OV-10 Bronco, F-111, Jaguar, RF-4C (if DCS would create a system  in campaigns or dynamic campaigns where recon missions would be needed to spot targets, locate targets and do BDA after strikes).

[kontiuka]

22 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

While it wouldn’t give MiG-29s fits ...

Fits of laughter maybe.  Sorry.  Couldn't resist. 

[r4y30n]

The F-101B shouldn’t be an issue, being the most produced version & flown by Canada & the U.S. Sure it can’t out turn a MiG, but then neither can the F-4.

And only armed with the AIM-4…

Either way, this thread is getting off topic. Better to put it in the general HB forum.

[Kalasnkova74]

24 minutes ago, r4y30n said:

And only armed with the AIM-4…
 

…which was implemented much better on the USAF/RCAF F-101B interceptors. The AIM-4 was designed to be used with a Hughes guidance system. The interceptor crew would lock on to the medium or high altitude target (such as a Bear, or B-52/British V-bomber ), the Hughes radar (or IRST) would hand off tracking data to an internal guidance system , and the guidance system would calculate the optimum launch point for the missile after six seconds of launch consent. It’s almost like an air to air version of CCRP; once the crew locked on they’d press the “shoot” trigger for launch consent and the airplane would take it from there. Missile cooling and seeker cueing were automatic processes transparent to the crew.

Using that system at altitude , the AIM-4 worked very well. AIM-4s frequently scored hit to kills on BOMARC SAM targets in that theatre (which thankfully never needed to be used for real). Note that a proximity fuse isn’t ideal for a bomber killing missile, since a big four engine Tupolev could easily survive a proximity detonation. An impact kill where the missile actually hits and embeds into the target is more desirable for the interceptor mission. 
 

When the USAF Systems Command ordered its installation on the F-4D and F-4E, it was done out of political spite against the Navy’s Sidewinder. Since the Navy owned the AIM-9 ,bruised egos in the USAF thought “Screw taking orders from those ship loving Admirals, we have a heat seeking missile too. Works the same right?” 
 

The result was one of the worst weapons system/airframe combinations fielded in Southeast Asia. The genius System Command generals took a high altitude , hit to kill bomber missile designed for a systemic guidance system and ordered it used manually at low altitude against maneuvering fighter sized targets. All the steps the Hughes system did to cue and launch the weapon automatically in the F-101B had to be managed by hand in the F-4D/E during a dogfight, including activating the seeker and triggering the cooling sequence. Further, external carriage of the AIM-4 at low level degraded the seeker heads , as the missile was engineered to be used in a weapons bay to minimize drag on the launching interceptor . 

It’s a miracle the 8th TFW hit any MiGs at all under those circumstances. Using an AIM-4 F-101B would be a more fun experience than many would think at first , although nuking a fleet of Tupolevs with an AIR-2 would probably get more headlines