Topic: Ron Moore Talks Star Trek

[TheJudge]

Ron Moore is the genius behind some good DS9 episodes, and of course the coolness that is the new BSG.  Many people are starting to compare BattleStar Galactica and Enterprise, but Ron's lastest blog holds no reference to his own show, BSG, but rather focuses on the strengths of Star Trek.  Let it stand on its own as a clarion call...

February 04, 2005
Trek goes back to the Fans
Now that Enterprise has been cancelled, we're about to enter a period not seen since the orignal series ended its run just a few weeks before Apollo 11 landed on the moon: a time without a Star Trek film or TV project on the horizon. From the reaction I've seen thus far, the consensus view seems to be that this is merely a pause in the trek, and that before too long, we'll be talking about the newest take on Roddenberry's universe, be it television, feature, animation or sock puppet. I tend to agree, insofar as I know first hand that Viacom considers "the Franchise" to be one of their crown jewels and I've personally heard them refer to the "next fifty years of Star Trek" as a corporate priority.

So Star Trek isn't dead and it isn't dying. It has, however, entered into an interregnum, a pause in the treadmill of overlapping productions that have become the norm for the series that was once considered "too cerebral for television."

Certainly there is sadness in this news. There has been a Star Trek production either in prep or being filmed on Stages 8 & 9 on the Paramount lot since 1977, when Star Trek: Phase Two began initial construction for a second series featuring all the original characters but Spock (these sets were then revamped for Star Trek: The Motion Picture). An entire infrastructure has been built around the productions, staffed by people whose involvement in the Franchise goes back over two decades. The dedication, passion, and talent of these artisans and craftsmen cannot be overstated. The unsung heroes of Trek, the people who sweat every detail, who take the time to think through continuity and try to make the vast universe consistent, people like Mike and Denise Okuda, Dave Rossi, Michael Westmore, Herman Zimmerman, Bob Blackman, and many others, are about to leave and take with them an enormous body of knowledge and talent that cannot be and will not be replicated again. That is cause for both tears and eulogies as the close of Enterprise signals the true end of an era.

However, there is another side of this story, one that perhaps is somewhat more hopeful and positive: Star Trek has now been returned to the care of its community of fans.

I say returned because there was a time when the fans were the exclusive owners and operators of what would later become the Franchise. From 1969 until 1979, a genuine grassroots movement of fans gathered together in conventions, published newsletters (in the primordial ooze of the pre-internet era, no less), wrote scads of fan fiction, created their own props and uniforms, and dreamed the dream of what it was to live aboard the good ship Enterprise.

I was one of those fans; I was a kid growing up in the 1970's who found Star Trek in strip syndication and bought every book and magazine I could lay my hands on and every piece of fan merchandise I could con my parents into buying and I can tell you that some of those efforts were abysmal and some were brilliant, but all of them were driven by a sense of passion rooted in a belief that Trek was our secret club. We, the fans, embroidered the Trek tapestry while the powers that be at Paramount dawdled. In those years, the best stories told not those written by Gene or any other "professional writers" (no offense to the short-lived, but well intentioned animated series), but by people like Sondra Marshak, Myrna Culbreath, and Jacqueline Lichtenberg. Who are they? Fans. People who loved Star Trek and were able to breath life into it during the interregnum between the show and the Franchise.

Star Trek now returns to the care of its fans and its fans can decide for themselves what kind of experience they want to have during this next interregnum. They can consume the seemingly endless licensed products available to them from the Franchise, everything from barware to shower curtains, and read only the mainstream, officially licensed and sanctioned books, or they can go their own way. Some of the most daring and creatively challenging Star Trek material has been created not by Paramount, but by amateurs, who simply had an idea for an interesting twist on the Trek universe. Think Kirk and Spock were secret lovers? Wonder about the social and cultural history of the planet Vulcan? Believe the Mirror Universe is more fascinating than our own? All these topics and many others were, and are, tackled by fans in their own fiction, their own stories, their own dreams.

Step back from the merchandising. Rediscover the joy and wonder of the universe Roddenberry created. Talk to people who share your common interest and who understand the difference between phaser mark I and mark II (duh!). You don't need another series to enjoy Star Trek. You need only your own imagination and the desire to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Got to love the Kirk and Spock secret lovers line...and a cool ode to Fanfic there (I do believe we have a few people on this board -including me- who he speaks to in this blog).  So far, this is the best Speech/blog/essay I've seen on the cancellation of Enterprise and what it means...and it's on the Sci-Fi Channel's official BSG site.

[J. Carney]

Got to love the Kirk and Spock secret lovers line

No, you don't.

Sorry, Judge, that was cleared up in Star Trek TMP. When you read the novel that was pulled from the whole script (including the scenes that didn't eventually make it into the movie) Kirk is marrried to the Lori (the woman that dies in the transporter accident) and specifically states that he couls neverhave anything like that 'with a creature that only came into sexual heat every 7 years.'

[Commander La'ra]

While I agree with Carney that I just do not see a Kirk and Spock relationship as possible, the rest of the article hits home like a GPS guided bomb.

I may have personal reasons for thinking so, however.

Oh...and if there was any male-male action in Trek it had to be Garak and Bashir.

*flees!*

[toasty0]

Got to love the Kirk and Spock secret lovers line...

...and Bones was the whinning, jealous b*tch always wishing that Kirk found him as exotic as Spock? That explains Bone's constantly trying to ply Kirk with Romulan ale and brandy. 

[TheJudge]

Carney, you took my Kirk/Spock paring far too seriously.  I for one would NOT want to see such a relationship.  Both characters are decidedly heterosexual and that's the way it is...I always did wonder about a possible Bones/Chekov pairing though. 



Oh, and the only 'out' gay character was of course Lt. Hawke from First Contact, and that wasn't on-screen but in the books.  Jadzia Dax's lesbian fling doesn't really count, of course because the other woman use to be Dax's wife when Dax was a male, so it kind of just goes right out of the human sexuality spectrum (same thing with the first trill we ever saw who loved Dr. Crusher).

Finally, Wesley, well he was Data's love slave but that doesn't count since Data's an android.  Apparently he was the only 'top' with enough stamina to satisfy Wesley's super-human cravings.

All fanfiction aside, though, Ron Moore hit the nail on the head.  I was surprised to see how...welcoming he was of fanfiction, even gay fanfiction, which was why I referenced the Kirk/Spock pairing.   Now I think I'm going to write an Apollo/Baltar fanfic from BSG and send it to him for his amusement.  Yes, let's see, after Episode 13 Baltar decides to get his revenge against Starbuck by sleeping with Apollo.  Hmm, it should be hilaroius (if you haven't seen Episode 12 or 13 yet, just wait, you'll understand why in the teaser at the beginning.)

[J. Carney]

Carney, you took my Kirk/Spock paring far too seriously.  I for one would NOT want to see such a relationship.  Both characters are decidedly heterosexual and that's the way it is...I always did wonder about a possible Bones/Chekov pairing though. 

Nah, Bones had an ex-wife (don't remember her name, daughter was Joanna) that he banged on an as-needed basis.

Checkov I could see- but I think that he'd be the dashing, boy-in-every-port type.

I've read a couple of Voyager books (one was named 'Reflections') that made passing and not-so-passing references to a pair of homosexual men (NO, not Tom and Harry). I never watched the show... was anything like that ever hinted at? I'll see if I can dig the books up, but I think that they went into the community pile while we were deployed.

[Dracho]

I always figured Scotty was secretly into BDSM with McCoy.

[Commander Maxillius]

Y'all're freaks.  Everyone knows they were all Uhura's bitch at one point or another.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

An entire infrastructure has been built around the productions, staffed by people whose involvement in the Franchise goes back over two decades. The dedication, passion, and talent of these artisans and craftsmen cannot be overstated. The unsung heroes of Trek, the people who sweat every detail, who take the time to think through continuity and try to make the vast universe consistent,

 

<bitter cynic mode>

Umm.... which series is he talking about again?

</bitter cynic mode>

-S'Cipio the Cynic

[TheJudge]

An entire infrastructure has been built around the productions, staffed by people whose involvement in the Franchise goes back over two decades. The dedication, passion, and talent of these artisans and craftsmen cannot be overstated. The unsung heroes of Trek, the people who sweat every detail, who take the time to think through continuity and try to make the vast universe consistent,

 

<bitter cynic mode>

Umm.... which series is he talking about again?

</bitter cynic mode>

-S'Cipio the Cynic

Ah, but the difference is that he TOLD US BSG would be different, he didn't try to hide the changes or blow them off.  He said we are re-doing this show and making it more reflective of the modern age. 

Even with all the dysfunctional relationships between the main characters, they'd turn around and kick the ass of the first BSG without having to break a sweat.  Starbuck alone would kick the butt of all the original viper pilots, with only Dirk Benedict giving her a challenge, and then not for long. 

[Dash Jones]

yeah right.  Sorry if I disagree with your assessment.  After watching the BSG finally, I really don't see what the draw was from people.  It seems full of a bunch of whiney people who wouldn't know how to fly if their life depended on it.  The flying reminds me more of a video game than real flying...the older BSG had more items relavant to flying...on the other hand I kind of wondered Why they would need an altitude indicator and other items for flying in the skies in space...as shown in the original BSG.

There have been several scenes in the new BSG that reminded me of the Wing Commander and StarLancer games...even down to shooting at incoming torpedos and other such nonsense...which in the original BSG would have been impossible...you can't shoot down something that travels faster than your own ammo, or your own ship.

Starbuck reminds me of a feminine rights lady who acts tough, but it's all in reality hollywood, put them up in a real scenario and they have nothing.

I loved the original Starbuck because he kept his cool, he was cool...even now, he's cool.  He was the cocky starwars Han Solo ripoff.  On the otherhand, the new Starbuck is some masochaostic female who is the epitome of what woman's rights want females to be, but are so out of it that the truth (I mean she has no muscles, they could at least get a female that was either not chubby, or at least had some REAL muscles to be comparble to a mans) that for mr they don't seem plausible. 

To tell the truth though, after finally watching the opener, it's lost my interest.  Then again there seems to be very little in American television that seems to catch my interest nowdays.  Most is sex violence, and soap opera and very little that is intellectually stimulating, except news and the history channel

[TheJudge]

You're weird and the original starbuck sucks compared to the new one.  All he did was whine about the trouble of double-dealing two women and clearly had trouble beating Apollo when it came to flying.  I mean, c'mon, that woman with the quadruple eyes and ears was giving him big hints on the casino planet but he was too busy trying to stare into her multiple eyes to see the obvious going on right under his nose! 

Oh, and the reality of him rebuilding a cylon?  C'mon, what is he master pilot, master gambler, master smoker, master ground soldier, AND master roboticist?  Let's not forget his whininess when he was accused of murder and complete inadequacy to help in his own defense.  Oh, and when he kept on firing at Count Iblis even after he'd seen Apollo's weapon have no effect was really, really stupid.

Let's talk about the tech of the old show as well.  Let's see...lasers.  We all know that lasers are completely useless in space. First of all, the damage ratio as range increases is totally stupid.  Real space combat is going to take place with projectile weapons fired at high speeds creating a literal wall of objects with high inertia that will slam into oncoming objects with such force that they obliterate them.  What's more, their range is only affected by the affect of gravity upon them (I believe something  says that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, does it not?)  Lasers are only effective from very short range, which is why ballistic objects are the weapons of choice in any space combat situation.  Further, look at those old vipers.  How the hell did they move around?  There were no maneuvering jets for them. The new vipers actually obey the laws of physics more than the old ones, but they old ones were our childhood loves so they have to be revered more...

Believe it or not, shooting at incoming missiles and torpedoes is the #1 defense used by real-word vessels and would continue to be the #1 method in space.  Shields remain the realm of far-out there sci-fi.  Armor, point-defense, missile interception are the real methods of the day, and the near future.  Lasers take too long to 'burn' through their target.  It's much easier to just put up a wall of metal with high levels of kinetic energy to wipe out the things in the way. 

[Dash Jones]

They used Laser Torpedos in the old series, which were different than simple lasers.  As for projectiles in space, with the ships going as fast as they are, the ships themselves would outrun any projectiles since the projectiles would become too massive in requiring enough force to overcome the speeds at which they would need to fly in combat.  In otherwords, they'd use lasers because the projectiles are too slow.  Even if they did use projectiles, with missiles coming faster than they would on earth...even now we normally don't use Fighters to shoot down missiles, we use cannons and guns on the ships themselves.

Lasers make more sense, as one can actually normally see the ships in the battles, hence the lasers would be effective.  If a ship were to be far enough not to be effective with lasers, then it would be a small dot or unseen.  I would assume Laser Torpedos are more effective than lasers.

Starbuck might have whined, but he was loved by all...well at least me when I watched it last year, decades after it was made.  This new Starbuck, she seems like a bad guy, a character I simply don't like.  Heck, I like Baltar better than her! 

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Um.... we DO use fighters to shoot down missiles.... what do you think the F14 was made for?

F14 Tomcats/AIM-54 Phoenix combo was designed specificly to shoot down bombers AND missiles.

Assuming that their targeting and sensor systems are much better than ours, hitting a missile with guns operated by a human pilot doesn't seem all that far fetched.

Not too mention that since speed is relative..... a fighter going mach X has a good chance of catching and shooting down a missile going slightly faster than itself.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Oh, also, you can always fall back on the old 'wall of lead' theory that if you place enough ammo in something's path, you are bound to hit it.

[Dash Jones]

Um.... we DO use fighters to shoot down missiles.... what do you think the F14 was made for?

F14 Tomcats/AIM-54 Phoenix combo was designed specificly to shoot down bombers AND missiles.

Assuming that their targeting and sensor systems are much better than ours, hitting a missile with guns operated by a human pilot doesn't seem all that far fetched.

Not too mention that since speed is relative..... a fighter going mach X has a good chance of catching and shooting down a missile going slightly faster than itself.

Well, I guess I learn something everyday.

[Commander La'ra]

British Gloster Meteors used to shoot down V1's, too.  That was in 1944...

[J. Carney]

British Gloster Meteors used to shoot down V1's, too.  That was in 1944...

And we used fighters to shoot down Kamikazis in the Pacific, which though they were flying airplanes, amount to the same thing as a guided missile. Especially in this guy's case... the MXY7 Ohka Cherry Blossom- it was really a rocket-powered missile with a pilot.

[Commander La'ra]

Are we belaboring the point or simply indulging our ever-present urge to discuss military hardware?

[J. Carney]

Are we belaboring the point or simply indulging our ever-present urge to discuss military hardware?

Uhhh...

Uhm....

What was the question again?

[TheJudge]

Darn it, every one beat me to the punch.  Okay, since the new BSG is set up on a basis of naval combat (Oh, by the way Ron Moore use to play the online version of Harpoon back when it first came out on the net). 

A modern naval carrier group travels with four to six escorts (which is why Ron Moore has said 'of course there are other ships besides Battlestars, but most if not all of them have been destroyed and weren't shown').  The primary threat to a carrier during the cold war was land-based aircraft and enemy surface ships/submarines.  Soviet doctrine called for massive waves of bomber-launched anti-ship missiles attacking from 2-3 axis and more sub or surface-launched missiles to form a 3rd or 4th axis of attack.

American doctrine called for waves of fighter patrols assisted by radar and jamming aircraft (Hawkeye and Queers in the Navy, Raptors in BSG).  The F-14 was designed so that it could launch six Phoenix Missiles at six targets at a range of over 100 miles.  They would launch at bombers if the bombers had not launched missiles already, or at incoming missiles.  Medium range fighters (F-4 or F-14) would take out incoming missiles with Sparrow/Sidewinder shots.  Remaining missiles would be engaged by surface vessels firing Surface to Air missiles, and point defenses (Basic Missile Defense, Five Inch Guns, and Phalanx Cannons) would then fire at surviving missiles.  As a final measure, chaff and flares would be launched by all ships, and a cruiser or destroyer always sailed close to the carrier so they could 'jump in front of the bullet' to save the carrier - yes, naval doctrine calls for a smaller ship to sacrifice itself to protect the carrier.  They even carry decoys to make smaller ships LOOK like the carrier on radar so they will attract the missile instead of the carrier.

BSG combat works on very similar principles.  The Vipers are to take out incoming bombers and missiles farther out from the ship, while the ship itself has weapons as a last-ditch point defense effort.  They also are set up to provide a 'zone of fire' so intense that they can destroy entire waves of incoming fighters.  Lasers don't work well unless it's at close range, and projectiles can travel forever until some gravity source slows them down and eventually pulls them in.  That's why projectiles are far more deadly in space than some laser beam (which should be traveling so fast that it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye anyway...I mean look at real life lasers, do you see them passing through air or just reflecting off their target?)

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Darn it, every one beat me to the punch.  Okay, since the new BSG is set up on a basis of naval combat (Oh, by the way Ron Moore use to play the online version of Harpoon back when it first came out on the net). 

Pphhffftttt!!!

"online" version?

Some friends of mine and I played the pen & paper version using models and one guy's basement floor (which had blue tile of all things!!!)

Massive battles were fought as were minor sub hunts & a variety of other scenarios....

Between us all... we had over 500 models.... thousands of counters (needed to track all those missiles, aircraft, and heloes).... we had battles that lasted months....

Guess you can say I was into 'Harpoon'.

BTW, did you know the creator, Larry Bond, was a Naval Intel officer?  He also helped Clancy in the writing of "Red Storm Rising" and wrote 5 book that I know of and have read.

[Commander La'ra]

I loved that game...the computer version anyway, I never had anyone who'd play the board game with me.

I loved the Mediterranean scenarios.  Leading the Soviet Navy's breakout through the Bosphurs(sp?) and into the Eastern Med...Oh yes.  I also remember a scenario where the smaller NATO countrys had to try and stop the Soviet surge without US support...God that was hard.

[Dracho]

Starbuck should have been more like Demi Moore in GI Jane.   


Now, the Meteor's shooting down V-1 buzz bombs.. they actually used to fly beside them, put thier wing under the bomb's, then tip it up and cause it to spiral into the sea or the ground..

Talk about a big brass pair!

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

As long as you are talking about brass balls.... how about the Russian WWII aviators who would ram their planes into German bombers just after bailing out....

They had plenty of planes but not enough pilots so it was.... acceptable.

[Commander La'ra]

So acceptable sections of the pilot manuals were devoted to the best techniques, in fact.

One method that MIGHT leave you a flyable plane involved slicing through the German's control surfaces with your propellor, if I remember right.

[KBF-Angel Slayer]

One aspect that everyone seems to be forgetting:  The  reason most of the new fighters are not going to 'bullets', for want of a better term, is the simple fact that projectile weapons have one major disadvantage:  when jets were first used, they would actually shoot themselves down, due to the fact that they  would fire their guns, and literally run into their own ammo.
   The laws of physics would apply in deep space as well.  You could only get X speed out of the ammunition, and then you would probably shoot yourself down due to being at a higher velocity than it was.

[TheJudge]

Bear, I remember several fond games of Harpoon, the board version of course.  I also remember kicking the butt of my own ship's captain in one scenario.     Now, the big question...how many of you still keep up with the computer version?  Does anyone have H3 besides me?

Angel, that would be possible, but the bullets begin with speed of the craft and accelerate as they are fired, so the viper would have to boost its speed above that of the projecticle...

[GDA-S'Cipio]

An entire infrastructure has been built around the productions, staffed by people whose involvement in the Franchise goes back over two decades. The dedication, passion, and talent of these artisans and craftsmen cannot be overstated. The unsung heroes of Trek, the people who sweat every detail, who take the time to think through continuity and try to make the vast universe consistent, [/color]

 

<bitter cynic mode>

Umm.... which series is he talking about again?

</bitter cynic mode>

-S'Cipio the Cynic

Ah, but the difference is that he TOLD US BSG would be different, he didn't try to hide the changes or blow them off. 

You misunderstood the point of my post.  I wasn't talking about BSG, old or new.  Rather, I was questioning who these unsung heros of Star Trek are, who sweat every detail and take time to think through continuity and keep the whole vast universe consistent.   I don't think they signed up for Enterprise.  (Or maybe the just took a three-year  coffee break.  Union rules, don't you know.)

-S'Cipio

[Dracho]

I used to waste hours with the Admiral's edition.  Is H3 worth picking up?

Bear, I remember several fond games of Harpoon, the board version of course.  I also remember kicking the butt of my own ship's captain in one scenario.     Now, the big question...how many of you still keep up with the computer version?  Does anyone have H3 besides me?

Angel, that would be possible, but the bullets begin with speed of the craft and accelerate as they are fired, so the viper would have to boost its speed above that of the projecticle...

[TheJudge]

Most definitely.  They took the H2 engine and updated it, plus they regularly update both the game engine and databases as well as continue to produce new scenarios.  With some of the changes they've made, the Russians are quite hard to crack thanks to their impressive point defenses (they really show what radar-aimed auto cannons can really do).  They also have a very good EU vs US amphib assault and have really improved the SAM modelling. 

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Haven't really kept up with it since the original Harpoon came out....

Should probably check H3 out.

[TheJudge]

www.harpoonhq.com

[Dracho]

I have a feeling my wife is going to be annoyed at you for sending me that link.. I think I detect a huge time waster in the near future..


Thanks.

[TheJudge]

I'm waiting avidly for the H3 multiplayer that's coming out soon.  It's worth the pennies for that one...

[Villa64]

One aspect that everyone seems to be forgetting:  The  reason most of the new fighters are not going to 'bullets', for want of a better term, is the simple fact that projectile weapons have one major disadvantage:  when jets were first used, they would actually shoot themselves down, due to the fact that they  would fire their guns, and literally run into their own ammo.
   The laws of physics would apply in deep space as well.  You could only get X speed out of the ammunition, and then you would probably shoot yourself down due to being at a higher velocity than it was.

I think the ammo leaves the aircraft under a formula like:

(speed of aircraft) + (muzzle velocity of the gun) = speed of the rounds as they exit the gun

The bullet isnt going to fly backward in the gun because the aircraft flies "faster than a speeding bullet".

Same for missiles.  Some missiles drop away from the aircraft before the motor ignites.  For that short period, the missile velocity doesnt drop to zero, it remains close to the speed of the aircraft at the time of release (adjusting for drag and gravity, of course).

In space, there is no drag, so the ordnance shouldnt have anything slowing it down at all.  Note that a high powered gun would slow a spacecraft though, depending upon the mass and velocity of the round.  I imagine that something could be done to try to minimize the effects of 'equal and opposite gun reaction', but not sure what that would be or how effective it would be.

I think the hazard in BSG's case is that for every space battle, there is going to be a "moving mine field" until the ordnance hits a planet or something.  That field of bullets is going to travel for a long time, potentially.  The comparison to our time is duds, mines, and other, but in our case they dont move around too much.  I guess a naval mine might drift around.  But at least you can fairly accurately chart and mark the main hazard.  In BSG's case, the hazards continue to move out.

Villa

[TheJudge]

The F-4 was the first fighter aircraft designed to use MISSILES as their main armament.  They never installed an internal cannon on that aircraft because they believed 'bullets' were finally outmoded.

After a few were shot down in Vietnam by bullets, they designed and installed gun pods to allow the pilots to use cannons to shoot down enemy aircraft.  Since then, every single fighter carries an internal cannon, usually 20mm, and they do not run into their own bullets.  That problem was a design flaw easily corrected.

I'd imagine the colonials probably had a similar problem to overcome when working on the Viper Mk 1.  To assume they couldn't overcome that problem would be idiotic. 

[KBF-Angel Slayer]

I never said they couldn't overcome it, I said that was one of the problems they ran into.  Projectile weaponry will be here to stay.  It is the most efficient means of engaging in close combat in the air.  Missiles, especially heat seekers, don't care if it is a bad guy or a good guy.
   They just want to go boom on something.  Even the sun works at times.

[Villa64]

The F-4 was the first fighter aircraft designed to use MISSILES as their main armament.  They never installed an internal cannon on that aircraft because they believed 'bullets' were finally outmoded.

After a few were shot down in Vietnam by bullets, they designed and installed gun pods to allow the pilots to use cannons to shoot down enemy aircraft.  Since then, every single fighter carries an internal cannon, usually 20mm, and they do not run into their own bullets.  That problem was a design flaw easily corrected.

I'd imagine the colonials probably had a similar problem to overcome when working on the Viper Mk 1.  To assume they couldn't overcome that problem would be idiotic. 

I think there were some century series fighters that were pre-F4 in terms of missile as main armament.  Maybe as early as the F89.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm

[Commander La'ra]

Actually, the F-106 had an internal gun.  It replaced the F-102, which did not.

[Villa64]

The F-106 got their guns late, like the Phantoms did.  F-106's were flying in the late '50's, but didnt get their guns until '69.  Even then not all got fitted.

All you ever wanted to know about Delta Darts:

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/index1.htm

[Commander La'ra]

That'll teach me to trust an airplane book I bought from Sears.

Though according to the same book, some versions of the F-101 were also built as 'all-missile' interceptors.  Doesn't say much about the F-89 carrying radar-guided missilies, but it does have a listing for one variant that carried Genie nuclear AARs.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Key word there guys is "INTERCEPTOR" those planes were made to shoot down bombers and missiles from a LONG range away.

Not get close quarters with real fighters.

[Ravok]

Bears right you guys . The main reason the 106's where not originally built with guns was that they where armed with nuclear tipped missiles. They where meant to use them to sweep the sky clean of Soviet bombers with them.

 The 106 is fast as heck going in strait line, but because of the drag caused at low speed ,and altitude, on the delta wing. It is a real turd in the maneuverability department

 The gun was added as an after thought to really confort the pilot, not actually do all that much good in combat..

[Firehawk]

That'll teach me to trust an airplane book I bought from Sears.

Though according to the same book, some versions of the F-101 were also built as 'all-missile' interceptors.  Doesn't say much about the F-89 carrying radar-guided missilies, but it does have a listing for one variant that carried Genie nuclear AARs.

The F-89J carried 2 AIR 2A Genie air-to-air nuclear tip rockets and 4 AIM 4C Falcons.  IIRC one of the earlier model F-89's carried 104 2.75" FFAR in 2 wing tip pods(52 in each)

[Commander La'ra]

Yeah, those are the earlier models.  Bet watching those things cut loose at night woulda been a show.

Bearslayer:  Gotta remember that in the early 60's, the Air Force insisted all future wars would be nuclear, dogfighting was an obsolete practice, and guided missiles and RPVs were the wave of the future.  They designed their planes accordingly.

Still, internal guns made it onto the F-104 Starfighter and the F-105 Thunderchief.  Someone knew what they were doing, unlike the Brits, who ended up cancelling almost every manned plane other than the Lightning.

[Villa64]

Key word there guys is "INTERCEPTOR" those planes were made to shoot down bombers and missiles from a LONG range away.

Not get close quarters with real fighters.

Interesting thing is that the F4 was designed as an interceptor (late as 1959), but for naval "fleet defense".  I did some googling about what does it take to be an 'interceptor' or a 'fighter' .  What I came up with was that fighters had in common were guns, and bombs (at least until the F14 showed up).  But the F4A didnt have a bomb rack, except for one that they tried, but removed because the F4 (using a naval fighter designation at the time) was designed to be an 'interceptor' (circa 1960).

However, the F4A was used as experimental, and as trainers in the RAG's.

The first operational F4's were F4B's, and they in fact, had bomb racks, but not guns (1961).

Further, the F101A was designed as an escort for bombers, not an interceptor, and it didnt have a gun, either.

Another interesting point is that 'F' designations were USAF designations until the mid 60's, when they became tri service.  At that time, a bunch of the naval fighters got redesignated from their confusing (to me, anyway) designations, to become the F1 through F9.

So, to conclude, I dont feel bad about highjacking this thread because no one was posting anyway.   

Villa