"Juvat" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Token
blurted out:

I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker.

OK

I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess.

Not surprisingly, you're impression was common back then.

While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands.

I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.

The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.

Juvat,
I understand your points and the reasoning behind it. My question is only:
why would the crew of the RF-4E in question then explain such a story?

After all, they said they used these cartriges to decoy the missiles, and
evaded four R-3/R-13s fired by the MiG in question, and also the Soviet
pilot rammed them in desperation. OK, the Atolls were not that problematic
to evade, but an RF-4E at supersonic speed is also not that maneuvreable
either.

Do you have any idea what kind of cartriges were used at earlier times?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585