F-8 versus F-4

Thomas Schoene wrote:
Yes. The French F-8s were specfically modified to support the Matra
530 SARH version, which must have meant adding a continuous wave
oscillator for illumination.

As Peter pointed out, this is wrong. Sorry for the disinformation.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:44:43 +0000, Guy Alcala wrote:
three-9Ds. AFAIK, no shots were taken. Later, the marines were talking about
modifying them into AGM-122 Sidearm ARMs for the Harrier, but I don't remember
if that ever went operational.

I don't think they were used on Harriers, but I believe Cobra's and maybe
Bronco's used them.

Rob

Thanks all for the feedback, and especially that very cool passage on
a F-101B intercept.

Regarding the French F-8E(FN)s, I was under the impression that they
could support the SARH 530, if only because their radar had a
different designation (APQ-104, vice APQ-94) than any of the US
Crusaders. I've got a 91/92 USNI Guide that says that the radars were
basically the same but modified to support "the French R.550 missile."
I'd always known of the 550 as being the Magic, which I thought to be
only an IR weapon, so I was thinking it might be a typo instead
referring to the R530 (and not expecting any need to modify the radar
for an IR weapon, just other components of avionics). Later in the
same paragraph it says "Presumably the modification represented by
APQ-104 was a CW injection mode." Again, this led me to believe some
manner of SARH weapons support (presumably the 530, not the 550), and
hence the question on Sparrow III. It sounds as though the 530 was
its own animal though.

It sounds like the F-8E(FN)s were left with the ability to use a
semi-sort of-cheesy SARH Matra 530, which was worth its weight in
ballast.

I also wondered about all this because I believe that the Demon, which
predated the Crusader, with its APG-51 could launch and illuminate for
Sparrow III, and I wondered why the USN would take a step "backward"
for the later Crusader.

On the F-101B, I guess I was getting at, "if you only need one person
on an F-102, why bother with two people on an F-101?" and it sounds
like the simple reason is the F-102 guy is pretty darn busy, and
likely to end up with non-optimal intercepts for lack of a second
noggin on the plane.

Thanks again all!

- Ian

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:49:29 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Thomas Schoene wrote:
Yes. The French F-8s were specfically modified to support the Matra
530 SARH version, which must have meant adding a continuous wave
oscillator for illumination.

As Peter pointed out, this is wrong. Sorry for the disinformation.

" I also wondered about all this because I believe that the Demon, which
predated the Crusader, with its APG-51 could launch and illuminate for
Sparrow III, and I wondered why the USN would take a step "backward"
for the later Crusader.

The F-8 was conceived as a day/vfr fighter. The original design had a small
radar for gun ranging only. The F-8C (F-8U2) had a very minimal radar
(unstabilized, 16 mile range), boresight acquisition only. Only in the D&E
models, did the F-8 get a remotely decent radar. The jet was designed with
a 32 rocket pack (remember the ADC aircraft with multi-2.75" unguided
rockets?), but fires were a constant problem in testing. Don't think it was
ever used operationally, but the pack was still there through the C-model
(D&E got some extra gas instead).

By comparison, the Demon was an interceptor with a pretty good (for its day)
search radar.

R / John

IRBusch wrote:

Thanks all for the feedback, and especially that very cool passage on
a F-101B intercept.

Regarding the French F-8E(FN)s, I was under the impression that they
could support the SARH 530, if only because their radar had a
different designation (APQ-104, vice APQ-94) than any of the US
Crusaders. I've got a 91/92 USNI Guide that says that the radars were
basically the same but modified to support "the French R.550 missile."
I'd always known of the 550 as being the Magic, which I thought to be
only an IR weapon, so I was thinking it might be a typo instead
referring to the R530 (and not expecting any need to modify the radar
for an IR weapon, just other components of avionics).

Certainly a typo, as Magic is an IR-only AAM, and it didn't enter service
until about 10 years after the Aeronavale bought the F-8 (the last rolled
off the line in January 1965).

Later in the
same paragraph it says "Presumably the modification represented by
APQ-104 was a CW injection mode." Again, this led me to believe some
manner of SARH weapons support (presumably the 530, not the 550), and
hence the question on Sparrow III. It sounds as though the 530 was
its own animal though.

It sounds like the F-8E(FN)s were left with the ability to use a
semi-sort of-cheesy SARH Matra 530, which was worth its weight in
ballast.

To be fair, while the R.530's performance was nothing to write home about,
much of the Israeli disdain for the weapon had to do with the
un-reliability of the radar/FCS in their Mirages. An IAF pilot I've
corresponded with knows Michael Haber (it's a small air force; everyone
knows everyone), the only IAF pilot (and as far as is known, the only pilot
in the world) to score a kill with the R.530. Not that there have been
many launches; IIRR the IAF only claimed two. He says that, in recounting
the story of his R.530 kill on 29 Nov. 1966 (a MiG-19, he got another
immediately after with his guns), Haber fully expected the radar to break
lock or just break down before the missile reached the MiG, and was waiting
for it to do so with his finger on the weapons select switch when the
missile hit. No one was more surprised by the hit than Haber.

I also wondered about all this because I believe that the Demon, which
predated the Crusader, with its APG-51 could launch and illuminate for
Sparrow III, and I wondered why the USN would take a step "backward"
for the later Crusader.

Mainly because the Crusader was originally designed and entered service as
a dayfighter, while the Demon served as an all-weather fighter, later
replaced by the F-4 in that role. The F3 and F-8 were pretty much co-eval,
serving side-by-side on the big carriers. The F-8 was considered to have
'limited' all-weather capability in its later variants, and the SARH AIM-9C
was developed to make this claim more realistic, especially as the
SCB-27C/125 Essex class carriers couldn't take the F-4.

Guy

Wow, Thanks for the great info (and John Carrier too)

It sounds like perhaps the only aircraft that could reliably launch
the 530 might have been the Crusader! (Presuming, of course that the
-104 radar set was more reliable than the Mirages . . .).

I guess the thing that is suprising me is why the later marks of
Crusader never received the F3's radar set. It doesn't appear to the
uneducated naked eye looking at the outside of the plane (how's that
for a caveat!) that there was a volume problem for the equipment, and
apparently a backseater wasn't an absolute necessity, and lastly, this
would've given much better (I guess) all weather capability to the
Crusader (for continuing operations on the Essex class ships) as well
as the ability to handle Sparrow (and presumably AIM-9C as well).

At a certain point I guess the day fighter concept had "had its day"
so to speak, and by that point F3 was gone, F4 was there, Essex's were
getting decomm'd and there was no reason to keep Crusader's going . .
..

- Ian

Snip

At a certain point I guess the day fighter concept had "had its day"
so to speak, and by that point F3 was gone, F4 was there, Essex's were
getting decomm'd and there was no reason to keep Crusader's going . .

Last fighter cruise was Sep 75 through Mar 76, VF-191 and 194 on Oriskany.
F-8J's. We had a simple intercept doctrine: "Give us a talley-ho."

R / John

Guy Alcala wrote:
IRBusch wrote:

I've got a 91/92 USNI Guide that says that the radars
were basically the same but modified to support "the French R.550
missile." I'd always known of the 550 as being the Magic, which I
thought to be only an IR weapon, so I was thinking it might be a
typo instead referring to the R530 (and not expecting any need to modify
the radar for an IR weapon, just other components of avionics).

Certainly a typo, as Magic is an IR-only AAM, and it didn't enter
service until about 10 years after the Aeronavale bought the F-8 (the
last rolled off the line in January 1965).

Probably a confusion of dates and weapons. The F-8E(FN)s were modified to
handle the R.550 Magic 1, but not when they were delivered. That
modification occured in the 1973, as an alternative to Sidewinder (which was
compatible, but rarely used).

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f8_16.html

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

I logged about 3000 hours in single seat interceptors (F86D/F102/F104A)
before ebing assigned to the F4. The Dog and the Deuce were fairly
similar in radar operation, both having a B scope (azimuth and range).
The D was a collision course interceptor, the Deuce all-aspect (except
for the rocket attack wherein it was just like a Dog). The IRST Deuce
was very flexible in that there were various modes of integration of
the radar and the IRSTS. Radar search with audio from the IR seeker
head slaved to the radar antenna, radar track with same, IR search with
no radar (4-bar scan), IR track with radar scan across target, IR track
with radar slaved, and a mickey mouse IR track, no radar, and a sort of
inverse square approach to ranging which was a pretty good way to run
up the tragte's tailpipe. The best way to range in IR only track was to
check C scam for a level look, drop down 3000 feet, press til a 30
degree up look angle; presto he was a mile away. BTW the IR could track
after-burning targets from the front quarter, too. The B58 stood out
very well at about 50 or so miles. A good Deuce radar was at least as
good as an F4D radar; we could detect jet transports and B52 out as far
as 150 miles over the water, certainly 125 over the Midwestern plains.
One reason for this was the direct view CRT as the F4's storage tube
lost about 3 db in image processing. In the CRT display a trained set
of eyeballs could pick out a target below average noise level because
it was there almost every sweep whereas scope noise was random with the
'spots' moving constantly.. (Eyeball integration - see the MIT radar
series for details). As for single versus two-seat - where the two
seater came out ahead in intercept work was low level intercepts and
night IDs. By low level I mean under 1000 AGL as far down as 300 AGL
over land or water. Night IDs on a blacked-out bogey under 1000 over a
dark ocean out of sight of land gets interesting, too. That and using a
3-cell flashlight (no built-in ID light!) to read the BuNos on those
dark blue VPs. The various VP outfits working out of Okinawa gave us
practice in those evolutions on their returns from along the DPRBC's
coastline. As for SAGE and data-link; it took a long time for the bugs
to be worked out but when they got it working I liked it - minimal
amount of radio transmissions - safety and oxygen checks, Judy, Splash,
maybe another pass or two and that was about it until handover for
recovery. I wonder what those huge monolithic SAGE buildings are used
for now? You can easily pick them out on 'Google Earth'.
Walt BJ

wrote:

snip

A good Deuce radar was at least as
good as an F4D radar; we could detect jet transports and B52 out as far
as 150 miles over the water, certainly 125 over the Midwestern plains.

snip

Walt, you've got to be careful about leaving out the dash in F-4D on
rec.aviation.military.naval, or they'll think you're talking about _their_
F4D, the Douglas Skyray aka the Ford;-) Actually, the F4D's radar was the
APQ-50, which was the original radar chosen for the F-4 (F4H-1F, later
F-4A) Phantom II, before they decided it needed a larger diameter antenna
to meet the range requirements; APQ-50 with the larger antenna was
designated the APQ-72, and the Phantom acquired its oversized nose as a
consequence. AFAICT, the F-4C's APQ-100 seems to have been an APQ-72 with a
bombing strobe and perhaps somewhat improved mapping capability, and the
F-4D's APQ-109 an APQ-100 with ground-ranging capability and the necessary
tie-ins for Dive-toss.

Re the capabilities of the F-4D radar, O'Brien, in his book "The Hungry
Tigers", says that the F-4D's radar (he flew them at Phu Cat in the
12thTFW) just wasn't in the same league (for an interceptor) as the F-106's
MA-1, as far as ECCM modes. He may have been referring to all the IR/Radar
options, but I got the impression he meant the actual ECCM circuitry. Have
you ever heard any similar comments from other ADC guys?

Guy