Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "The Fight Between Two Legendary US Aces That Gave The Phantom A Gun" video.

No, the F-106 was never intended to be the USAF premier air superiority fighter. It was intended to be its premier bomber interceptor, working in concert with the SAGE system. The F-106 not only did not have a gun or a gunsight, it did not originally even have air supply for a pilot G-suit. This is why USAF bought the Navy developed F-4 when it saw an immediate need for a new tactical fighter to replace the F-100 and 104.
66
@pyronuke4768 Sorry, but your logic is twisted. These terms have meanings. The F-106 was not an air superiority fighter, as claimed by this video. It was designed and equipped to intercept and shoot down bombers attacking the United States; it was not equipped to engage enemy fighters in a battle for air superiority over contested airspace. Just because such specialized aircraft no longer exist doesn't mean we should forget why they existed, especially if we are endeavoring to discuss history.
14
@pyronuke4768 Your convoluted argument is specious and does not change the meaning of the commonly used term air superiority fighter.
7
Yes. USAF has always wanted a gun on its tactical fighters. The bomber interceptors were armed first with unguided rockets and later with radar guided missiles. The F-102 and 106 not only lacked a gun and a gunsight, they lacked provision for a pilot G-suit (added later in life to the 106). They were bomber interceptors. The other century series jets were tactical fighters and all had a gun, whether designed for air superiority like the F-104 or air to ground like the F-105. Even the later F-111A bomber could carry a gun if necessary, although doing so would have been a waste of its specialized expertise.
7
@pyronuke4768 And the F-111 was meant to be a bomber for the Air Force and an interceptor for the Navy. Airplanes can do more than one thing when properly equipped, and the two versions had different equipment for their different roles. The USAF F-4 was equipped from the start to be a tactical fighter-bomber because that's what USAF needed. The F-106 was not so equipped; it was equipped to be an automated bomber interceptor. Read up on ADC and the SAGE system. The F-4 was not equipped for that. The F-106 was not equipped to fight enemy fighters. It didn't even have provision for a pilot G suit because that wasn't needed to intercept bombers attacking the U.S.
6
@RCAvhstape Thank you.
4
@pyronuke4768 You have been wasting our time with convoluted argument that ignore the basic facts. Thanks for stopping.
3
@drgondog Actually, I think technically the U.S. did have air superiority over Vietnam. It could conduct operations at any time and place despite enemy opposition. I think many critics simply had an expectation of absolute air supremacy and a lower loss rate. USAF Air University Doctrinal Advisory on Control of the Air: Air Superiority is that degree of control of the air by one force that permits the conduct of its operations at a given time and place without prohibitive interference from air and missile threats. Air Supremacy is that degree of control of the air wherein the opposing force is incapable of effective interference within the operational area using air and missile threats.
2
@mcamp9445 That was not original to the design and was added to only some of the jets after 1972. They also had to add a gunsight and a new canopy for better vision. Given that the gun was an afterthought installed in the weapons bay with the barrel titled downward, I have to wonder how it could have been useful in a dogfight. Seems that to pull enough lead on a hard turning target you could lose sight of it below the nose. Any 106 drivers out there?
1
@Stay_at_home_Astronaut81 Although it had not been designed as a dogfighter (no jets really were at the time anyway), I have never heard that the F-106 was an awful dogfighter. The ADC pilots were originally not trained for that and didn't even have a G-suit or gunsight, and the canopy had poor visibility. But it reportedly had good maneuverability, and when used as a simulated MiG-21 adversary did well against the F-4. The gun could have been used against bombers, but I read that its installation was primarily inspired by the test dogfighting the 106 did in the Have Doughnut program. The clear vision canopy and G-suit hookup were added along with the gun, and those items were not needed to shoot at bombers. That said, I don't see how the gun in this particular installation would have been very effective in a dogfight because it would seem nigh impossible to pull much lead on a maneuvering target. But we mustn't forget that historically most pilots never even saw the fighter that shot them down, so pulling a lot of lead is not always necessary.
1