Beckett and Rice developed a basic platform meeting these requirements, then attempted to build a fiberglass prototype in a garage. The effort produced enthusiastic supporters and an informal pamphlet describing the concept. W. H. Beckett, who had retired from the Marine Corps, went to work at North American Aviation to sell the aircraft.

The aircraft's design supported effective operations from forward bases. The OV-10 had a central nacelle containing a crew of two in tandem and space for cargo, and twin booms containing twin turboprop engines. The visually distinctive feature of the aircraft is the combination of the twin booms, with the horizontal stabilizer that connected them at the fin tips. The OV-10 could perform short takeoffs and landings, including on aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Further, the OV-10 was designed to take off and land on unimproved sites. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools. No ground equipment was required to start the engines. And, if necessary, the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.

The aircraft had responsive handling and could fly for up to 5½ hours with external fuel tanks. The cockpit had extremely good visibility for both pilot and co-pilot, provided by a wrap-around "greenhouse" that was wider than the fuselage. North American Rockwell custom ejection seats were standard, with many successful ejections during service. With the second seat removed, the OV-10 could carry 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) of cargo, five paratroopers, or two litter patients and an attendant. Empty weight was 6,969 pounds (3,161 kg). Normal operating fueled weight with two crew was 9,908 pounds (4,494 kg). Maximum takeoff weight was 14,446 pounds (6,553 kg).

The bottom of the fuselage bore sponsons or "stub wings" that improved flight performance by decreasing aerodynamic drag underneath the fuselage. Normally, four 7.62 mm (.308 in) M60C machine guns were carried on the sponsons, accessed through large forward-opening hatches. The sponsons also had four racks to carry bombs, pods, or fuel. The wings outboard of the engines contained two additional hardpoints, one per side. Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually seven-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets, or 5" (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered/para-dropped unattended seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were also carried.

Operational experience showed some weaknesses in the OV-10's design. It was significantly underpowered, which contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough. While specifications stated that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.

The OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. In U.S. military service, the Bronco was operated until the early Nineties, and obsoleted USAF OV-10s were passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for anti-drug operations. A number of OV-10As furthermore ended up in the hands of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and were used for spotting fires and directing fire bombers onto hot spots.

This was not the end of the OV-10 in American military service, though: In 2012, the type gained new attention because of its unique qualities. A $20 million budget was allocated to activate an experimental USAF unit of two airworthy OV-10Gs, acquired from NASA and the State Department. These machines were retrofitted with military equipment and were, starting in May 2015, deployed overseas to support Operation “Inherent Resolve”, flying more than 120 combat sorties over 82 days over Iraq and Syria. Their concrete missions remained unclear, and it is speculated they provided close air support for Special Forces missions, esp. in confined urban environments where the Broncos’ loitering time and high agility at low speed and altitude made them highly effective and less vulnerable than helicopters.

Furthermore, these Broncos reputedly performed strikes with the experimental AGR-20A “Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)”, a Hydra 70-millimeter rocket with a laser-seeking head as guidance - developed for precision strikes against small urban targets with little collateral damage. The experiment ended satisfactorily, but the machines were retired again, and the small unit was dissolved.

However, the machines had shown their worth in asymmetric warfare, and the U.S. Air Force decided to invest in reactivating the OV-10 on a regular basis, despite the overhead cost of operating an additional aircraft type in relatively small numbers – but development and production of a similar new type would have caused much higher costs, with an uncertain time until an operational aircraft would be ready for service. Re-activating a proven design and updating an existing airframe appeared more efficient.

The result became the MV-10H, suitably christened “Super Bronco” but also known as “Black Pony”, after the program's internal name. This aircraft was derived from the official OV-10X proposal by Boeing from 2009 for the USAF's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance requirement. Initially, Boeing proposed to re-start OV-10 manufacture, but this was deemed uneconomical, due to the expected small production number of new serial aircraft, so the “Black Pony” program became a modernization project. In consequence, all airframes for the "new" MV-10Hs were recovered OV-10s of various types from the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.

While the revamped aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, modernizations included a completely new, armored central fuselage with a highly modified cockpit section, ejection seats and a computerized glass cockpit. The “Black Pony” OV-10 had full dual controls, so that either crewmen could steer the aircraft while the other operated sensors and/or weapons. This feature would also improve survivability in case of incapacitation of a crew member as the result from a hit.

The cockpit armor protected the crew and many vital systems from 23mm shells and shrapnel (e. g. from MANPADS). The crew still sat in tandem under a common, generously glazed canopy with flat, bulletproof panels for reduced sun reflections, with the pilot in the front seat and an observer/WSO behind. The Bronco’s original cargo capacity and the rear door were retained, even though the extra armor and defensive measures like chaff/flare dispensers as well as an additional fuel cell in the central fuselage limited the capacity. However, it was still possible to carry and deploy personnel, e. g. small special ops teams of up to four when the aircraft flew in clean configuration.

Additional updates for the MV-10H included structural reinforcements for a higher AUW and higher g load maneuvers, similar to OV-10D+ standards. The landing gear was also reinforced, and the aircraft kept its ability to operate from short, improvised airstrips. A fixed refueling probe was added to improve range and loiter time.

Intelligence sensors and smart weapon capabilities included a FLIR sensor and a laser range finder/target designator, both mounted in a small turret on the aircraft’s nose. The MV-10H was also outfitted with a data link and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included was the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide live sensor data and video recordings to personnel on the ground.

To improve overall performance and to better cope with the higher empty weight of the modified aircraft as well as with operations under hot-and-high conditions, the engines were beefed up. The new General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines improved the Bronco's performance considerably: top speed increased by 100 mph (160 km/h), the climb rate was tripled (a weak point of early OV-10s despite the type’s good STOL capability) and both take-off as well as landing run were almost halved. The new engines called for longer nacelles, and their circular diameter markedly differed from the former Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop engines. To better exploit the additional power and reduce the aircraft’s audio signature, reversible contraprops, each with eight fiberglass blades, were fitted. These allowed a reduced number of revolutions per minute, resulting in less noise from the blades and their tips, while the engine responsiveness was greatly improved. The CT7-9Ds’ exhausts were fitted with muzzlers/air mixers to further reduce the aircraft's noise and heat signature.

Another novel and striking feature was the addition of so-called “tip sails” to the wings: each wingtip was elongated with a small, cigar-shaped fairing, each carrying three staggered, small “feather blade” winglets. Reputedly, this installation contributed ~10% to the higher climb rate and improved lift/drag ratio by ~6%, improving range and loiter time, too.

Drawing from the Iraq experience as well as from the USMC’s NOGS test program with a converted OV-10D as a night/all-weather gunship/reconnaissance platform, the MV-10H received a heavier gun armament: the original four light machine guns that were only good for strafing unarmored targets were deleted and their space in the sponsons replaced by avionics. Instead, the aircraft was outfitted with a lightweight M197 three-barrel 20mm gatling gun in a chin turret. This could be fixed in a forward position at high speed or when carrying forward-firing ordnance under the stub wings, or it could be deployed to cover a wide field of fire under the aircraft when it was flying slower, being either slaved to the FLIR or to a helmet sighting auto targeting system.

The original seven hardpoints were retained (1x ventral, 2x under each sponson, and another pair under the outer wings), but the total ordnance load was slightly increased and an additional pair of launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinders or other light AAMs under the wing tips were added – not only as a defensive measure, but also with an anti-helicopter role in mind; four more Sidewinders could be carried on twin launchers under the outer wings against aerial targets. Other guided weapons cleared for the MV-10H were the light laser-guided AGR-20A and AGM-119 Hellfire missiles, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the light Hydra 70 rockets, the new Laser Guided Zuni Rocket which had been cleared for service in 2010, TV-/IR-/laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick AGMs and AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missiles, plus a wide range of gun and missile pods, iron and cluster bombs, as well as ECM and flare/chaff pods, which were not only carried defensively, but also in order to disrupt enemy ground communication.

In this configuration, a contract for the conversion of twelve mothballed American Broncos to the new MV-10H standard was signed with Boeing in 2016, and the first MV-10H was handed over to the USAF in early 2018, with further deliveries lasting into early 2020. All machines were allocated to the newly founded 919th Special Operations Support Squadron at Duke Field (Florida). This unit was part of the 919th Special Operations Wing, an Air Reserve Component (ARC) of the United States Air Force. It was assigned to the Tenth Air Force of Air Force Reserve Command and an associate unit of the 1st Special Operations Wing, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). If mobilized the wing was gained by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) to support Special Tactics, the U.S. Air Force's special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel were typically the first to enter combat and often found themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support.

In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production quickly ran into problems, though. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 %, but just 15 % of the tools could actually be re-used. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete, too, and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F flew on 22 November 1952, it was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. The first 275 aircraft, equipped with conventional stabilizer-elevator tailplanes, suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and poor turning ability at combat speeds. Beginning with Block 25, the problem was improved upon by the introduction of a hydraulically powered one-piece stabilator. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.

The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust, but this arrangement kept the nose section free and permitted placement of cameras, and the different design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, though, delaying operational service until March 1954.

During the F-84F’s development the Air Defense Command was looking for a replacement for the outdated F-94 ‘Starfire’ interceptor, a hasty development from the T-33 trainer airframe with an afterburner engine and an on-board radar. However, the F-94 was only armed with machine guns in its early versions or unguided missiles in its later incarnations, which were inadequate. An aircraft with better performance, ideally with supersonic speed, a better radar, and the ability to carry guided missiles (in the form if the AIR-1 and 2 ‘Falcon’ AAMs) as well as the AIR-2 ‘Genie’ missile was now requested.

The Douglas AIR-2 Genie followed a unique but effective concept that represented the technological state-of-the-art: it was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead. The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The World War II-age fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed bomber formations, which were expected to come in at high altitude and at high subsonic speed. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided, since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. Full-scale development began in 1955, with test firing of inert warhead rockets commencing in early 1956. The final design carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,000 lbf) thrust, sufficient to accelerate the rocket to Mach 3.3 during its two-second burn. Total flight time was about 12 seconds, during which time the rocket covered 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. However, there was no mechanism for disarming the warhead after launch. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (980 ft). Once fired, the Genie's short flight-time and large blast radius made it virtually impossible for a bomber to avoid destruction. The rocket entered service with the designation MB-1 Genie in 1957.

During the development phase the first carrier aircraft earmarked to carry the AIR-2 was the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, which had already been introduced in the early Fifties. While being an all-weather interceptor with on-board radar, it was a slow and large aircraft, and outdated like the F-94. Trying to keep the F-84 production lines busy, however, Republic saw the chance to design an all-weather interceptor aircraft that would surpass the F-89’s mediocre performance and meet the AIR-2 carrier requirements on the basis of the swept-wing (R)F-84F. To emphasize its dedicated interceptor role and set it apart from its fighter-bomber ancestors, the heavily modified aircraft was designated F-96B (even though it had little to do with the XF-96A that became the F-84F) and called ‘Thunderguard’.

The F-96B was largely based on the RF-84F’s airframe with its wing-root air intakes, what offered ample space in the aircraft’s nose for a radar system and other equipment. The radar was coupled with a state-of-the-art Hughes MC-10 fire control system. To relieve the pilot from operating the radar system one of the fuel cells behind the cockpit was deleted and a second crew member was placed behind him under an extended, strutless hood that opened to starboard. To compensate for the loss of fuel and maintain the F-84F’s range, a new tank was mounted under the cockpit floor in the aircraft’s center of gravity.

To improve performance and cope with the raised take-off weight, the F-96B was powered by an uprated Wright J65-W-18 turbojet, which generated 0.4 kN more dry thrust than the F-84F’s original J65-W-3 (7,700 lbf/34 kN). This was not too much, though, so that the J65 was additionally outfitted with an afterburner. With this upgrade the powerplant provided a maximum thrust of 10,500 lbf (47 kN), what resulted in a markedly improved rate of climb and the ability to break the sound barrier in level flight. The additional reheat section necessitated a wider and longer rear fuselage, which had to be redesigned. As an unintended side benefit, this new tail section reduced overall drag due to a slightly area-ruled coke-bottle shape behind the wings’ trailing edge, which was even emphasized through the ventral brake parachute fairing.

Armament consisted only of missiles, which were all carried externally on wing stations, all guns of the former F-84 versions were deleted to save weight. The F-96B’s weapons range included GAR-1/2/3/4 (Later re-designated as AIM-4) radar- and IR-guided Falcon air-to-air missiles and a pair of MB-1 Genie missiles. Up to four pods with nineteen unguided 2.75 in (70 mm) "Mighty Mouse" Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each were an alternative, too, and a pair of drop tanks were typically carried under the inner wings to provide the aircraft with sufficient range, since the new afterburner significantly increased fuel consumption.

Even though it was only a derivative design, the F-96B introduced a lot of innovations. One of these was the use of a diverertless supersonic inlet (DSI), a novel type of jet engine air intake to control air flow into their engines. Initial research into the DSI was done by Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. It consisted of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which worked together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. In the case of the F-96B this was realized as an inward-turning inlet with a variable contraction ratio. However, even though they had not been deemed necessary to guarantee a clean airflow, the F-96B’s air intakes were further modified with splitter plates to adapt them to the expected higher flight speeds and direct the air flow. The initial flight tests had also revealed a directional instability at high speed, due to the longer nose, so that the tail surfaces (both fin and stabilizers) were enlarged for the serial aircraft to compensate.

Another novel feature was an IRST sensor in front of the windscreen which augmented the on-board radar. This sensor, developed by Hughes International and designated ‘X-1’, was still very experimental, though, highly unreliable, and difficult to handle, because it relied on pressurized coolant to keep the sensor cold enough to operate properly, and dosing it at a consistent level proved to be difficult (if not impossible). On the other side the IRST allowed to track targets even in a massively radar-jammed environment. The 7” diameter silicone sensor was, together with the on-board radar, slaved to the fire control system so that its input could be used to lock guided missiles onto targets, primarily the GAR-1 and GAR-2 AAMs. The X-1 had a field of view of 70×140°, with an angular resolution of 1°, and operated in 2.5 micron wavelength range. When it worked properly the sensor was able to detect a B-47-sized aircraft’s tails aspect from 25 nm (29 ml/46 km) and a target of similar size from directly ahead from 10 nm (12 ml/19 km). Later, better developed versions of Hughes IRST, like the X-3 that was retrofitted to the F-101B in the early Sixties, had a better range and were more reliable.

During the Thunderguard’s development another competitor entered the stage, the F-101B Voodoo. In the late 1940s, the Air Force had already started a research project into the future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons, and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point. Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo fighter bomber), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. Its development was protracted, so that the F-96B – even though it offered less performance – was ordered into production to fill the USAF’s urgent interceptor gap.

F-96B production started after a brief test phase in late 1957, and the first aircraft were delivered to the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in 1958. However, when it became clear that the F-101B would finally enter service in 1959, F-96B production was quickly cut down and the initial order of 300 aircraft reduced to only 150, which were produced until early 1960 in three batches. Only sixty were directly delivered to ADC units, because these were preferably equipped with the supersonic F-102A and the new F-101B, which could also carry the nuclear Genie missile. The rest was directly handed over to Air National Guard units – and even there they were quickly joined and replaced by the early ADC aircraft.

Operationally, almost all F-96Bs functioned under the US–Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which protected North American airspace from Soviet intruders, particularly the threat posed by nuclear-armed bombers. In service, the F-96Bs were soon upgraded with a data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. Furthermore, the F-96B was upgraded to allow the carrying of two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles instead of the Genies when they became available in 1961.

In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production quickly ran into problems, though. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 %, but just 15 % of the tools could actually be re-used. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete, too, and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F flew on 22 November 1952, it was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. The first 275 aircraft, equipped with conventional stabilizer-elevator tailplanes, suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and poor turning ability at combat speeds. Beginning with Block 25, the problem was improved upon by the introduction of a hydraulically powered one-piece stabilator. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.

The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust, but this arrangement kept the nose section free and permitted placement of cameras, and the different design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, though, delaying operational service until March 1954.

During the F-84F’s development the Air Defense Command was looking for a replacement for the outdated F-94 ‘Starfire’ interceptor, a hasty development from the T-33 trainer airframe with an afterburner engine and an on-board radar. However, the F-94 was only armed with machine guns in its early versions or unguided missiles in its later incarnations, which were inadequate. An aircraft with better performance, ideally with supersonic speed, a better radar, and the ability to carry guided missiles (in the form if the AIR-1 and 2 ‘Falcon’ AAMs) as well as the AIR-2 ‘Genie’ missile was now requested.

The Douglas AIR-2 Genie followed a unique but effective concept that represented the technological state-of-the-art: it was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead. The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The World War II-age fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed bomber formations, which were expected to come in at high altitude and at high subsonic speed. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided, since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. Full-scale development began in 1955, with test firing of inert warhead rockets commencing in early 1956. The final design carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,000 lbf) thrust, sufficient to accelerate the rocket to Mach 3.3 during its two-second burn. Total flight time was about 12 seconds, during which time the rocket covered 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. However, there was no mechanism for disarming the warhead after launch. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (980 ft). Once fired, the Genie's short flight-time and large blast radius made it virtually impossible for a bomber to avoid destruction. The rocket entered service with the designation MB-1 Genie in 1957.

During the development phase the first carrier aircraft earmarked to carry the AIR-2 was the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, which had already been introduced in the early Fifties. While being an all-weather interceptor with on-board radar, it was a slow and large aircraft, and outdated like the F-94. Trying to keep the F-84 production lines busy, however, Republic saw the chance to design an all-weather interceptor aircraft that would surpass the F-89’s mediocre performance and meet the AIR-2 carrier requirements on the basis of the swept-wing (R)F-84F. To emphasize its dedicated interceptor role and set it apart from its fighter-bomber ancestors, the heavily modified aircraft was designated F-96B (even though it had little to do with the XF-96A that became the F-84F) and called ‘Thunderguard’.

The F-96B was largely based on the RF-84F’s airframe with its wing-root air intakes, what offered ample space in the aircraft’s nose for a radar system and other equipment. The radar was coupled with a state-of-the-art Hughes MC-10 fire control system. To relieve the pilot from operating the radar system one of the fuel cells behind the cockpit was deleted and a second crew member was placed behind him under an extended, strutless hood that opened to starboard. To compensate for the loss of fuel and maintain the F-84F’s range, a new tank was mounted under the cockpit floor in the aircraft’s center of gravity.

To improve performance and cope with the raised take-off weight, the F-96B was powered by an uprated Wright J65-W-18 turbojet, which generated 0.4 kN more dry thrust than the F-84F’s original J65-W-3 (7,700 lbf/34 kN). This was not too much, though, so that the J65 was additionally outfitted with an afterburner. With this upgrade the powerplant provided a maximum thrust of 10,500 lbf (47 kN), what resulted in a markedly improved rate of climb and the ability to break the sound barrier in level flight. The additional reheat section necessitated a wider and longer rear fuselage, which had to be redesigned. As an unintended side benefit, this new tail section reduced overall drag due to a slightly area-ruled coke-bottle shape behind the wings’ trailing edge, which was even emphasized through the ventral brake parachute fairing.

Armament consisted only of missiles, which were all carried externally on wing stations, all guns of the former F-84 versions were deleted to save weight. The F-96B’s weapons range included GAR-1/2/3/4 (Later re-designated as AIM-4) radar- and IR-guided Falcon air-to-air missiles and a pair of MB-1 Genie missiles. Up to four pods with nineteen unguided 2.75 in (70 mm) "Mighty Mouse" Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each were an alternative, too, and a pair of drop tanks were typically carried under the inner wings to provide the aircraft with sufficient range, since the new afterburner significantly increased fuel consumption.

Even though it was only a derivative design, the F-96B introduced a lot of innovations. One of these was the use of a diverertless supersonic inlet (DSI), a novel type of jet engine air intake to control air flow into their engines. Initial research into the DSI was done by Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. It consisted of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which worked together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. In the case of the F-96B this was realized as an inward-turning inlet with a variable contraction ratio. However, even though they had not been deemed necessary to guarantee a clean airflow, the F-96B’s air intakes were further modified with splitter plates to adapt them to the expected higher flight speeds and direct the air flow. The initial flight tests had also revealed a directional instability at high speed, due to the longer nose, so that the tail surfaces (both fin and stabilizers) were enlarged for the serial aircraft to compensate.

Another novel feature was an IRST sensor in front of the windscreen which augmented the on-board radar. This sensor, developed by Hughes International and designated ‘X-1’, was still very experimental, though, highly unreliable, and difficult to handle, because it relied on pressurized coolant to keep the sensor cold enough to operate properly, and dosing it at a consistent level proved to be difficult (if not impossible). On the other side the IRST allowed to track targets even in a massively radar-jammed environment. The 7” diameter silicone sensor was, together with the on-board radar, slaved to the fire control system so that its input could be used to lock guided missiles onto targets, primarily the GAR-1 and GAR-2 AAMs. The X-1 had a field of view of 70×140°, with an angular resolution of 1°, and operated in 2.5 micron wavelength range. When it worked properly the sensor was able to detect a B-47-sized aircraft’s tails aspect from 25 nm (29 ml/46 km) and a target of similar size from directly ahead from 10 nm (12 ml/19 km). Later, better developed versions of Hughes IRST, like the X-3 that was retrofitted to the F-101B in the early Sixties, had a better range and were more reliable.

During the Thunderguard’s development another competitor entered the stage, the F-101B Voodoo. In the late 1940s, the Air Force had already started a research project into the future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons, and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point. Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo fighter bomber), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. Its development was protracted, so that the F-96B – even though it offered less performance – was ordered into production to fill the USAF’s urgent interceptor gap.

F-96B production started after a brief test phase in late 1957, and the first aircraft were delivered to the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in 1958. However, when it became clear that the F-101B would finally enter service in 1959, F-96B production was quickly cut down and the initial order of 300 aircraft reduced to only 150, which were produced until early 1960 in three batches. Only sixty were directly delivered to ADC units, because these were preferably equipped with the supersonic F-102A and the new F-101B, which could also carry the nuclear Genie missile. The rest was directly handed over to Air National Guard units – and even there they were quickly joined and replaced by the early ADC aircraft.

Operationally, almost all F-96Bs functioned under the US–Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which protected North American airspace from Soviet intruders, particularly the threat posed by nuclear-armed bombers. In service, the F-96Bs were soon upgraded with a data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. Furthermore, the F-96B was upgraded to allow the carrying of two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles instead of the Genies when they became available in 1961.