Radar from the 60s

Sorry, TMO, You got it all wrong!

What downward ejection seats in the A-3-3 are you talking about? The A-3
never had ejection seats!

Hell, we could get to 50,000 feet altitude in the FJ-3 in 1956!

A-3s flying back and forth over your black shoe radars without being
detected was so common off Pt Mugu that radar beacons had to be used to be
able to conduct ship's missile tests.

FYI, the A-3 probably had the most sophisticated ECM system in any USA
aircraft when the Vietnam "flail-ex" commenced. We took the ALQ-51 deception
repeaters out of our A-3s to install in A-4s flying over Hanoi. Later a
dozen other Navy.Marine a/c types also got the ALQ-51. We even had to cough
up fifty of them for Air Force photo recce a/c.

Meanwhile the USAF was putting the ALQ-76 "jamming pods on their F-4s.
"Protection" by that pod required their a/c to fly in rigid parade formation
to counter the Fansong radar. But if just one of the pod equipped planes
slid out of formation it was immediately tracked and nailed by Guidline
missiles. That was because the damned pods were actually beacons instead of
jammers!

CDR Dick Seymour [later the VADM commanding Naval Air Systems Command] took
a squadron set of ALQ-76 to Yankee Station with his A-4s but never put the
damned things on any of his aircraft going feet dry over NVN. He brought all
his pilots home safe.

Sorry, TMO, there's much more to the A-3 story than you are evidently aware
of.

WDA
VF-24, VA-192, 1955 - 1959

end
"TMOliver" wrote in message
...
"WDA" vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

In the 60s carrier based A-3 heavy attack bombers flying above 40,000
feet often could approach a warship and not be detected on the air
search radar even when passing overhead.


As a 60s era carrier based Air Intercept Controller, I'll argue your claim
from two contrarian perspectives...

A. Unless some here can establish reasonable evidence to the contrary the
number of A3 strike sorties (or EA3 missions) routinely flown above Angels
40 will fit over in the slim and none category. Ops above 40 with any
navy
a/c in the early 60s were simply not the norm, and even the most capable,
the F8s, were troubled by compressor stalls in certain attitudes.
Certainly, the advent of the F4 changed the picture, but F4s remained in
short supply until '64 or so.

B. I can't think of an aspect in which an A3 wasn't a well-painted target
(at least on the SPS-37 or 43, although I had no experience with low
flyers
(but I knew few former A3 drivers who were happy flying low, them downward
firing seats lending little survivability to a low altitude mechanical
problem). I "learned" on an SPS-12, a gadget of lesser range, but there
were controllers who worked SPS-6s, high art and good intuitive skill
required.

TMO

"WDA" vented spleen or mostly mumbled...



Sorry, TMO, there's much more to the A-3 story than you are evidently
aware of.



I simply don't recollect the A3s or EA3s routinely operating above 40,000,
or presenting anything out of the ordinary as radar target. I do recall
pilots who had flown the FJ series claiming that its parameters greatly
exceeded those of the Demon which normally flew neither high nor long. In
the Med, the constraints against activating active ECM gear were almost
prohibitive.

It was not uncommon for low altitude A1 strikes to avoid detection (even
with their four paddled reflector), all of sudden popping up on the SPS-10C
which had to be finely adjusted to not mask snorkels in sea return.

TMO

"WDA" wrote in message
. net...
SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP
Meanwhile the USAF was putting the ALQ-76 "jamming pods on their F-4s.
"Protection" by that pod required their a/c to fly in rigid parade
formation
to counter the Fansong radar. But if just one of the pod equipped planes
slid out of formation it was immediately tracked and nailed by Guidline
missiles. That was because the damned pods were actually beacons instead
of
jammers!
WDA
VF-24, VA-192, 1955 - 1959

Ah Hah! Flying the infamous SAM box with the ALQ-76. (The ALQ-76's were
amplifying beacons). The theory was to keep a 800-1000 feet between
aircraft. The signal return (+amplification) would look like one aircraft
and the SAM would guide to the center of the blip. Therefore the SAM will
detonate between the aircraft missing each by 400-500 feet.

Would you trust this device?

Red

I was flying USAF 86Fs and later 86Ds on Okinawa 54-57. I was told
Navy A3Ds would routinely cross overhead at 40+ on their way to and
from PI - Japan. Their cruising speed was high enough to give the Dog
fits trying to intercept them before running out of fuel.
Walt BJ

Red wrote:

"WDA" wrote in message
. net...
SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP
Meanwhile the USAF was putting the ALQ-76 "jamming pods on their F-4s.
"Protection" by that pod required their a/c to fly in rigid parade
formation
to counter the Fansong radar. But if just one of the pod equipped planes
slid out of formation it was immediately tracked and nailed by Guidline
missiles. That was because the damned pods were actually beacons instead
of
jammers!
WDA
VF-24, VA-192, 1955 - 1959

Ah Hah! Flying the infamous SAM box with the ALQ-76. (The ALQ-76's were
amplifying beacons). The theory was to keep a 800-1000 feet between
aircraft. The signal return (+amplification) would look like one aircraft
and the SAM would guide to the center of the blip. Therefore the SAM will
detonate between the aircraft missing each by 400-500 feet.

Would you trust this device?

Allow me to point out that the Air Force fighters used the ALQ-71 (nee'
QRC-160-1) and later the ALQ-87 (nee' QRC-160-8) noise jammers, not the
ALQ-76. And the USN suffered greater percentage losses to SAMs in Vietnam
than the USAF did, despite all the navy a/c being equipped with the ALQ-51.
Both types of jammers had their advantages and disadvantages; the USAF began
using the ALQ-101 (nee' QRC-335) combined noise/deception jammer from 1968, on
those a/c that by nature of their missions (MiGCAP, Wild Weasel) had to fly
more independently.

With regard to Bill Allen's statement that the Air Force pods were "actually
beacons instead of jammers," that's rather subject to fine print. Certainly
by 1972 the VPAF/ADF SAM crews were sometimes operating in a "jamming strobe"
mode, decreasing the gain to use the jamming strobe for direction/elevation,
and a separate radar (often in another band) to provide range data. But AFAIK
they never had the capability to use a true home-on-jam capability; the SA-2
was command guided (unlike the Sparrow), so how could they? The USAF noise
jamming pods were also modified to jam the missile beacons (transponders)
starting around the end of 1967, which proved extremely effective until the
VPAF/ADF (actually, their Soviet advisers) made some changes to the
transponders to make this type of jamming more difficult. This took effect no
later than 1972, and possibly a bit earlier (I'd have to check a few sources).

Guy

Ballensr- What downward ejection seats in the A-3-3 are you talking about?
The A-3
never had ejection seats! BRBR

Navy Whale didn't but the USAF(B-66?) did....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer