Jump to content

ROCAF North American F-100A Super Saber - The Hun Goes to Taiwan


Z3r0_
 Share

ROCAF F-100A  

78 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support adding this aircraft to the Chinese tech tree at rank 6, as a regular fighter?

    • Yes
      59
    • No
      19


f-100a_31615-1.jpg

The Chinese tree came to the game in update 1.91 and while there's certainly a decent selection of aircraft, there could definitely be more, and I recalled reading somewhere that the ROCAF had F-100s so I figured "why not?"

First, a brief overview of the aircraft's history: the F-100 was the first of the 'century' series of US warplanes and was also the first fully operational military aircraft capable of breaking Mach 1 in level flight, originally designed as a follow-on from its namesake: the F-86 Saber.  The aircraft had a fairly lengthy career in the US and was exported to a few different countries, but, as it turns out, the longest user of any F-100 variant was Taiwan's ROCAF.  They were the only nation besides the US to operate the F-100A, the dedicated air superiority variant of the plane, presumably in response to the Red Chinese on the mainland getting their hands on MiG-17s from the Soviets (and later producing them themselves as the Shenyang J-5), after the interim solution of fitting their F-86Fs with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles helped to close the gap somewhat (and led directly to the Soviets getting their hands on one of said missiles after one of them lodged itself in a MiG-17 and failed to detonate, but that's another story).  At least according to Wikipedia, the ROCAF took delivery of 119 F-100As, 4 RF-100As, and 14 F-100Fs, a number of them being lost on missions over the mainland or the Strait of Taiwan.  Supposedly a number of these F-100As received modifications in the form of a tail taken from an F-100D to counter the variant's notorious stability problems (and included said variant's AN/APS-45 tail warning radar) and capability to mount AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.  The last of these planes was retired in 1988.

This would take its place on the Western fighter branch of the tree after the F-86F-30NA to give that branch some sort of supersonic aircraft with missiles.  Again, the F-100A was a variant of the plane only used by the USAF, US Air National Guard, and the ROCAF (and in the latter's case, they used more than HALF of all F-100As produced), and the ROCAF's variant was modified to suit their needs, making it a unique variant.  Sure, you don't get the AGMs for combined arms, but in air battles you'll hardly notice the difference.



Specifications (thanks EpicBlitzkrieg87)

Source: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-100supersabre/f-100a-super-sabre-standard-aircraft-characteristics-20-january-1961.html

Be aware that the stats listed below may be a little different from how it was irl, since, as mentioned before, ROCAF F-100As were retrofitted with the vertical stabilizer and tail warning radar of the F-100D.

 

General Characteristics

 

First flight: 29th of October, 1953

Number built: 203

Role: Fighter

Status: Production, canceled 

Crew: 1

Length: 14.57 m (47.8 ft)

Wingspan: 11.82 m (38.8 ft)

Wing area: 35.77 m² (385 ft²)

Height: 4.7 m (15.5 ft)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0130

Drag area: 0.46 m² (5.0 ft²)

Aspect ratio: 3.76

Empty weight: 8,248.6 kg (18,185 lbs)

Basic weight: 8,600 kg (18,960 lbs)

Design weight: 10,843.579 kg (23,906 lbs)

Combat weight: 11,615 kg (25,607 lbs)

Max. takeoff weight: 13,141 kg (28,971 lbs)

Max. landing weight: 13,141 kg (28,971 lbs)

Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney J57-P-39 afterburning turbojet

  • w/o afterburner: 4,400 kgf (43.15 kN, 9,700 lbf)
  • with afterburner: 6,712.7918 kgf (65.83 kN, 14,800 lbf)

Fuel capacity: 4,900 liters (1,294 US gal, 1,077.5 Imp gal)

 

Performance

 

Maximum speed: 

  • at sea level: 1,190 km/h (739 mph, 642.5 kts) (full power)
  • at 10,668 m (35,000 ft): 1,389 km/h (863 mph, 750 kts) (full power)

Stall speed (power off): 255.5 km/h (159 mph, 138 kts)

Rate of climb: 

  • Basic mission: 116 m/s (380.57 ft/s) (full power)
  • Design mission: 122 m/s (400 ft/s) (full power)
  • Ferry range: 142 m/s (466.6 ft) (full power)

Time to 6,100 m (20,000 ft): 4.3 min

Time to 9,144 m (30,000 ft): 6.9 min

Combat ceiling: 15,630 m (51,280 ft)

 

Combat range: 576 km (358 mi, 311 nmi)

Max. range: 2,082.5 km (1,294 mi, 1,124 nmi)

Takeoff roll: 905 m (2,970 ft)

Wing loading:

  • Empty weight: 230.601062 kg/m² (47.23 lb/ft²)
  • Basic weight: 240.424937 kg/m² (49.24 lb/ft²)
  • Design weight: 303.147302 kg/m² (62.09 lb/ft²)
  • Combat weight: 324.713447 kg/m² (66.51 lb/ft²)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 367.374895 kg/m² (75.24 lb/ft²)
  • Max. landing weight: 367.374895 kg/m² (75.24 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight (without afterburner):

  • Empty weight: 0.53
  • Basic weight: 0.51
  • Design weight: 0.40
  • Combat weight: 0.38
  • Max. takeoff weight: 0.33
  • Max. landing weight: 0.33

Thrust/weight (with afterburner): 

 

  • Empty weight: 0.81
  • Basic weight: 0.78
  • Design weight: 0.62
  • Combat weight: 0.58
  • Max. takeoff weight: 0.51
  • Max. landing weight: 0.51

 

Armament

 

Guns: 4 x 20mm M39A1 revolver cannons (200 rpg, 800 rds total)

Missiles: 4 x AIM-9B Sidewinder heat-seeking / infrared-homing air-to-air missiles

Bombs:

 

  • 2 x 1000 lb bombs (2 x 455 kg)

or

  • 2 x 750 lb bombs (2 x 340 kg)

or

  • 2 x 500 lb bombs (2 x 230 kg)

Electronics:

  • AN/APC-30 Ranging Radar
  • AN/ABC-34 UFF Command
  • AN/APX-6A IFF
  • AN/APX-25 IFF
  • AN/ARN-6 Radio Compass
  • AN/ARN-21TACAN

 

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-100_Super_Sabre

http://www.f-100.org/hun037.shtml (for pictures)

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f100_2.html

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-100supersabre/3785todo.html

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-100supersabre/to-1f-100ai-1-flight-manual-f-100a-i.html

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-100supersabre/3789todo.html

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-100supersabre/f-100a-super-sabre-standard-aircraft-characteristics-20-january-1961.html

And, obviously, a couple of those links also cite their own sources.

 

EDIT 1: Added another source provided by you guys.  Thanks for the help!
 

EDIT 2: Changed the specifications.  Thanks again to EpicBlitzkrieg87

Edited by Z3r0_
Added another source.
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the very few times I accept lend-lease.

 

The Chinese really lack in having unique planes and at top tier. While this is another F-100, it's the F-100A, the dedicated fighter variant unlike the F-100D fighter-bomber we have. 

 

It is very different; it lacked the speed and fighter-bombing capabilities the F-100D has.

 

Because it's worse than the F-100D by a good margin, adding this only to the Chinese tree would do no harm to the US because it's a worse F-100, and would give the Chinese a unique touch to them. 

 

Besides, after the Chinese F-86F-30, there is nothing supersonic.

 

Big +1 from me

 

If fans of the US tree complain about this being added to the Chinese, the US tree could receive the F-100C which is essentially an F-100A with ordnance 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator

According to the F-100A SAC 1961 document the payloads for the F-100A are as follows:

 

4x GAR-8 (AIM-9B)

2x 1000 lb bombs

2x 750 lb bombs

2x 500 lb bombs

 

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-100A_Super_Sabre_SAC_-20_January_1961.pdf

 

f-100a_31540.jpg

Edited by Miki_Hoshii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

This is one of the very few times I accept lend-lease.

 

The Chinese really lack in having unique planes and at top tier. While this is another F-100, it's the F-100A, the dedicated fighter variant unlike the F-100D fighter-bomber we have. 

 

It is very different; it lacked the speed and fighter-bombing capabilities the F-100D has.

 

Because it's worse than the F-100D by a good margin, adding this only to the Chinese tree would do no harm to the US because it's a worse F-100, and would give the Chinese a unique touch to them. 

 

Besides, after the Chinese F-86F-30, there is nothing supersonic.

 

Big +1 from me

 

If fans of the US tree complain about this being added to the Chinese, the US tree could receive the F-100C which is essentially an F-100A with ordnance 

 

You know what the Chinese TT could get after the Taiwanese lineup to succeed a potential F100A ?

 

F5A Freedom Fighter followed by the F5E Tiger 2 ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

You know what the Chinese TT could get after the Taiwanese lineup to succeed a potential F100A ?

 

F5A Freedom Fighter followed by the F5E Tiger 2 ;)

 

 

The F-5A makes a lot of sense for them since it's the export version, but I wouldn't want them to have the best F-5 (F-5E)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
13 minutes ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The F-5A makes a lot of sense for them since it's the export version, but I wouldn't want them to have the best F-5 (F-5E)

However the F-5E/F was built locally by AIDC, they produced a couple hundred each and they still serve today. I don't understand this if X nation designed it Y nation shouldnt get it despite the fact that Y nation operated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Miki_Hoshii said:

However the F-5E/F was built locally by AIDC, they produced a couple hundred each and they still serve today. I don't understand this if X nation designed it Y nation shouldnt get it despite the fact that Y nation operated it.

 

It's the fact that X nation that designed said vehicle should not be as good as Y nation with the lend-lease or foreign production. I find that just stupid, for example imagine Germany having the same number of MiGs Russia does, or Germany with more MiGs in the future

 

It doesn't sound sensible.

  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
50 minutes ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

It's the fact that X nation that designed said vehicle should not be as good as Y nation with the lend-lease or foreign production. I find that just stupid, for example imagine Germany having the same number of MiGs Russia does, or Germany with more MiGs in the future

 

It doesn't sound sensible.

Except for a majority of vehicles, nobody has as many variants as the original nation. These are what these nations purchased, denying them is selfish. I doubt Germany would 1 for 1 have every Soviet production MiG-21. 

Edited by Miki_Hoshii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The F-5A makes a lot of sense for them since it's the export version, but I wouldn't want them to have the best F-5 (F-5E)

 

The F-5A would follow this on the tech tree, and was actually on a hypothetical Chinese air tree I put together a while ago

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Miki_Hoshii said:

Except for a majority of vehicles, nobody has as many variants as the original nation. These are what these nations purchased, denying them is selfish. I doubt Germany would 1 for 1 have every Soviet production MiG-21. 

 

Yes it would. You should check out the list.

 

China shouldn't have the best F-5 in its tech tree. It's just not the designer of it. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

Yes it would. You should check out the list.

 

China shouldn't have the best F-5 in its tech tree. It's just not the designer of it. 

 

They probably will get F-5Es eventually, if only because they actually use theirs as fighters and recon planes (whereas iirc the USAF has only ever used it for training and aggressor purposes)...and in practice it'd be comparable to the J-7 on the PLAAF branch.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Z3r0_ said:

 

They probably will get F-5Es eventually, if only because they actually use theirs as fighters and recon planes (whereas iirc the USAF has only ever used it for training and aggressor purposes)...and in practice it'd be comparable to the J-7 on the PLAAF branch.

 

Well anyhow I suggest you to base its data entirely on this

 

40c9ba94844f8b0f1ec03328104df238_XL.jpg

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-100supersabre/f-100a-super-sabre-standard-aircraft-characteristics-20-january-1961.html

 

I'd like this suggestion to be a lot more successful :yes_yes_yes:

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

Well anyhow I suggest you to base its data entirely on this

 

40c9ba94844f8b0f1ec03328104df238_XL.jpg

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-100supersabre/f-100a-super-sabre-standard-aircraft-characteristics-20-january-1961.html

 

I'd like this suggestion to be a lot more successful :yes_yes_yes:

 

That's the plan, I just didn't have the time to read through the various manuals since I'm having irl issues with my apartment (to say I'm not having a good day is an understatement, even if the landlord's footing the bill, but enough about my personal problems).

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Z3r0_ said:

That's the plan, I just didn't have the time to read through the various manuals since I'm having irl issues with my apartment (to say I'm not having a good day is an understatement, even if the landlord's footing the bill, but enough about my personal problems).

 

Saved you some time :yes_yes_yes: based on my preferred layout and the manual

 

Spoiler

 

General Characteristics

 

First flight: 29th of October, 1953

Number built: 203

Role: Fighter

Status: Production, canceled 

Crew: 1

Length: 14.57 m (47.8 ft)

Wingspan: 11.82 m (38.8 ft)

Wing area: 35.77 m² (385 ft²)

Height: 4.7 m (15.5 ft)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0130

Drag area: 0.46 m² (5.0 ft²)

Aspect ratio: 3.76

Empty weight: 8,248.6 kg (18,185 lbs)

Basic weight: 8,600 kg (18,960 lbs)

Design weight: 10,843.579 kg (23,906 lbs)

Combat weight: 11,615 kg (25,607 lbs)

Max. takeoff weight: 13,141 kg (28,971 lbs)

Max. landing weight: 13,141 kg (28,971 lbs)

Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney J57-P-39 afterburning turbojet

  • w/o afterburner: 4,400 kgf (43.15 kN, 9,700 lbf)
  • with afterburner: 6,712.7918 kgf (65.83 kN, 14,800 lbf)

Fuel capacity: 4,900 liters (1,294 US gal, 1,077.5 Imp gal)

 

Performance

 

Maximum speed: 

  • at sea level: 1,190 km/h (739 mph, 642.5 kts) (full power)
  • at 10,668 m (35,000 ft): 1,389 km/h (863 mph, 750 kts) (full power)

Stall speed (power off): 255.5 km/h (159 mph, 138 kts)

Rate of climb: 

  • Basic mission: 116 m/s (380.57 ft/s) (full power)
  • Design mission: 122 m/s (400 ft/s) (full power)
  • Ferry range: 142 m/s (466.6 ft) (full power)

Time to 6,100 m (20,000 ft): 4.3 min

Time to 9,144 m (30,000 ft): 6.9 min

Combat ceiling: 15,630 m (51,280 ft)

 

Combat range: 576 km (358 mi, 311 nmi)

Max. range: 2,082.5 km (1,294 mi, 1,124 nmi)

Takeoff roll: 905 m (2,970 ft)

Wing loading:

  • Empty weight: 230.601062 kg/m² (47.23 lb/ft²)
  • Basic weight: 240.424937 kg/m² (49.24 lb/ft²)
  • Design weight: 303.147302 kg/m² (62.09 lb/ft²)
  • Combat weight: 324.713447 kg/m² (66.51 lb/ft²)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 367.374895 kg/m² (75.24 lb/ft²)
  • Max. landing weight: 367.374895 kg/m² (75.24 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight (without afterburner):

  • Empty weight: 0.53
  • Basic weight: 0.51
  • Design weight: 0.40
  • Combat weight: 0.38
  • Max. takeoff weight: 0.33
  • Max. landing weight: 0.33

Thrust/weight (with afterburner): 

 

  • Empty weight: 0.81
  • Basic weight: 0.78
  • Design weight: 0.62
  • Combat weight: 0.58
  • Max. takeoff weight: 0.51
  • Max. landing weight: 0.51

 

Armament

 

Guns: 4 x 20mm M39A1 revolver cannons (200 rpg, 800 rds total)

Missiles: 4 x AIM-9B Sidewinder heat-seeking / infrared-homing air-to-air missiles

Bombs:

 

  • 2 x 1000 lb bombs (2 x 455 kg)

or

  • 2 x 750 lb bombs (2 x 340 kg)

or

  • 2 x 500 lb bombs (2 x 230 kg)

Electronics:

  • AN/APC-30 Ranging Radar
  • AN/ABC-34 UFF Command
  • AN/APX-6A IFF
  • AN/APX-25 IFF
  • AN/ARN-6 Radio Compass
  • AN/ARN-21TACAN


 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
On 14/09/2019 at 19:01, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

Yes it would. You should check out the list.

 

China shouldn't have the best F-5 in its tech tree. It's just not the designer of it. 

 

USSR:

MiG-21F

MiG-21F-13

MiG-21PF

MiG-21PFS

MiG-21PFM

MiG-21R

MiG-21S

MiG-21N

MiG-21SM

MiG-21MT

MiG-21SMT

MiG-21ST

MiG-21bis

MiG-21U

MiG-21US

MiG-21USM

 

East German:

MiG-21F-13

MiG-21PF

MiG-21SPS

MiG-21SPS-K

MiG-21M

MiG-21MF

MiG-21bis

MiG-21U

MiG-21US

MiG-21USM

 

USSR: 16

East Germany: 10

 

As for the F-5 discussion, the ROCAF used the F-5E in large numbers, you cant change that. But if you're so concerned with the US having the best Tiger, you could give them the F-5N, or the F-20... Enough of this discussion though.

 

The way I see it, the ROCAF should have the F-100A, but the USAF should also be allowed the F-100A. Doesnt matter to me who gets it first, or if at the same time.

Edited by Miki_Hoshii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The F-5A makes a lot of sense for them since it's the export version, but I wouldn't want them to have the best F-5 (F-5E)

 

No one is saying US shouldn't get one, but it makes sense for taiwan as F5 series in general was an airplane intended  as an affordable "no frill for thrill"  tactical fighters:for export and or for license production

 

Besides technically speaking the best US operated F5  version would be the USN F5N ;)

 

Spoiler

 

 well still technically an F5E as it was a buyback from former swiss upgraded F5's, but you get what i mean

 

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

(snip)

 

Thank you very much!

 

51 minutes ago, Miki_Hoshii said:

 

USSR:

MiG-21F

MiG-21F-13

MiG-21PF

MiG-21PFS

MiG-21PFM

MiG-21R

MiG-21S

MiG-21N

MiG-21SM

MiG-21MT

MiG-21SMT

MiG-21ST

MiG-21bis

MiG-21U

MiG-21US

MiG-21USM

 

West German:

MiG-21F-13

MiG-21PF

MiG-21SPS

MiG-21SPS-K

MiG-21M

MiG-21MF

MiG-21bis

MiG-21U

MiG-21US

MiG-21USM

 

USSR: 16

East Germany: 10

 

As for the F-5 discussion, the ROCAF used the F-5E in large numbers, you cant change that. But if you're so concerned with the US having the best Tiger, you could give them the F-5N, or the F-20... Enough of this discussion though.

 

The way I see it, the ROCAF should have the F-100A, but the USAF should also be allowed the F-100A. Doesnt matter to me who gets it first, or if at the same time.

 

Just be aware that the ROCAF's F-100As were a little different from the USAF/USANG F-100A, featuring a new vertical stabilizer and tail warning radar taken off of an F-100D (intended to solve the issues the F-100A had with yaw instability).

Edited by Z3r0_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Miki_Hoshii said:

 

USSR:

MiG-21F

MiG-21F-13

MiG-21PF

MiG-21PFS

MiG-21PFM

MiG-21R

MiG-21S

MiG-21N

MiG-21SM

MiG-21MT

MiG-21SMT

MiG-21ST

MiG-21bis

MiG-21U

MiG-21US

MiG-21USM

 

West German:

MiG-21F-13

MiG-21PF

MiG-21SPS

MiG-21SPS-K

MiG-21M

MiG-21MF

MiG-21bis

MiG-21U

MiG-21US

MiG-21USM

 

USSR: 16

East Germany: 10

 

As for the F-5 discussion, the ROCAF used the F-5E in large numbers, you cant change that. But if you're so concerned with the US having the best Tiger, you could give them the F-5N, or the F-20... Enough of this discussion though.

 

The way I see it, the ROCAF should have the F-100A, but the USAF should also be allowed the F-100A. Doesnt matter to me who gets it first, or if at the same time.

 

 

You took it too literally. What I meant is that they would have the same amount of main MiG-21 variants. Most of those are trainers, and anyhow, even if they didn't have the same number of MiG-21 modifications in real life, they shouldn't in WT either. They're not German planes.

 

8 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

No one is saying US shouldn't get one, but it makes sense for taiwan as F5 series in general was an airplane intended  as an affordable "no frill for thrill"  tactical fighters:for export and or for license production

 

Just saying the Chinese shouldn't have the best of a jet variant before the US or at the same time because it's not Chinese :salute: 

8 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

Thank you very much!

 

 

Np I was bored :D

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2019/9/15 at AM6點14分, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The F-5A makes a lot of sense for them since it's the export version, but I wouldn't want them to have the best F-5 (F-5E)

Why?  Americans do not use F-5 extensively but mostly use it as an imaginary enemy or training.

And before 1990's we only have F-104 and F-5 can use.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...