If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Buzzer wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:35:18 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: In the 1 1/2 year period between the introduction in SEA of the APS-107D and the APR-36/37 which would you have preferred? The APS-54, Vector 4, pre-qual/qual APR-25/26 or APS-107D? Especially if you knew the APS-107D detected missile launch the same way as the year and a half in the future APR-36/37? Bob, I thought they'd modified the APR-26 to look at the signal characteristics instead of just the power level so as to cutdown on false launch warnings (the NVN 'playing the L-band'), and that this was carried over to the APR-37? I don't know the history of the F-4C APR-26 after last quarter of 1967. I remember on the F-105 weasel the Bowman mod that tied the launch into the APR-25 strobe pointing to the site. No memory of any changes to the launch detect for the APR-26 on the F-105 in 1969 at Korat. Seems like I would remember that since it would have been like the APR-37 my primary system at that time. The AS light on the APR-36/37 was the simple version of the ALR-31 on the weasel which I think had been around for a couple years. You're right and I was misremembering. It seems that APR-37 was essentially the APR-26 with that modification, but that APR-26 itself wasn't improved. Here's what I've got, from Jenkins' book on the Thud: "The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26 replacement in April [1966]. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. The 934-1B differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2 missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Only after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and the improved sets redesignated APR-37." This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his his section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the 'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits: "A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed on the APR-25 azimuth indicator." BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative. Guy |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Buzzer wrote: On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:35:18 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: The AS light on the APR-36/37 was the simple version of the ALR-31 on the weasel which I think had been around for a couple years. You're right and I was misremembering. It seems that APR-37 was essentially the APR-26 with that modification, but that APR-26 itself wasn't improved. Here's what I've got, from Jenkins' book on the Thud: "The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26 replacement in April [1966]. Not to disparage Jenkins, who's done great research on the F-105, but "potential replacement in April (1966)" doesn't track well with my experience. I arrived at Korat in May of '66 and at that time the APR-25/26 was just being initially installed in the operational jets. We had maybe a dozen airplanes out of 40 or so with the "vector" gear. Installation of the entire fleet wasn't completed until mid-June. I hadn't even seen or been briefed on the RHAW gear while in training at Nellis through April of '66. To be seeking replacement before initial installation doesn't make any sense. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. The 934-1B differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2 missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Only after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and the improved sets redesignated APR-37." I'm not a "squeaks and beeps" EW, but here's what I was taught about the sequence for the SA-2. The initial TDU (Threat Display Unit) light were for "Lo" indicating a low PRF (pulse recurrence frequency), as you got lit up with both beams of the Fan Song (Az & El), you got a "Hi" for high PRF. When missile data upload was taking place, another frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got the "Launch" light. This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his his section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the 'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits: "A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed on the APR-25 azimuth indicator." While the "correlate a C-band missile guidance signal to a specific E-F band signal" tracks with what I said above regarding "launch" lites, it doesn't equate with what the definition of the AS light was. The AS (azimuth sector, but colloquially the "aw ****" light) meant you were illuminated by both the horizontal and elevation beams of the Fan Song at high PRF. It literally meant that you were the designated target for that particular missile system. It did NOT relate to a missile actually being launched. BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative. Yes, different frequency bands displayed different strobes. A Fire Can was a solid strobe, a Fan Song a three dash line, and something else (CRS strikes here) for an AI (air intercept) radar. In the high threat arena, the 25/26 was notorious for degenerating into a big "spider" in the center of the scope. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: "The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26 replacement in April [1966]. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. And there we were in June 1966 sitting on the ground at Eglin with the F-4C WWIV waiting for range time on the SADS and cancelling for rain when another site was available. Here I thought and was led to believe the Eglin SADS was the only one available.. The 934-1B differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2 missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Shame they didn't have to stand up before a couple hundred pilots and say we see no compelling reason to give you a better system that would give you more confidence and might save your life! Welcome to the realities of the Vietnam War.. Only after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and the improved sets redesignated APR-37." The original story I heard in June 1966 at the APR-25/26 class at Keesler and later from the tech reps was the missile guidance signal was feed into a dummy load. That caused the Activity Light to come on. Then when they launched and switched to active guidance at a higher power the Launch Light came on. Another variation on that was they interrogated the missiles at low power before launch that gave the Activity and then went high power to guide giving Launch light. No mention at all of how the missile was quided until I took the APR-36/37 factory course in 1968 at ATI/ITEK in Palo Alto, CA. Here they went into the guidance pulse train and what the APR-37 looked at. They talked like this was recent intel and here the info had been around for years. This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). I'm not sure how the ALR-31 was tied into everything else on the F-105. I saw the circuit boards with a zillion surface mounts ICs on them and I was in awe. It made the APR-26 and 36 look like crystal radios. I remember a control box on the left rear panel. Little meter about 3/4 inch across that indicated beams centered when the needle centered sticking up in the center. How anyone could see the thing while flying was beyond me. Jenkins, further on his his section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the 'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits: "A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed on the APR-25 azimuth indicator." I've seen the explanation of the mod somewhere on the net or in a book. I can't find it now on the net, but I might have it saved to a CD. Bowman might not be the right spelling, but sounds close to that. He was an airman at Korat ECM shop when he got the idea. He was kind of a legend when I got to Korat in Nov 1968. Went on to work for ATI/ITEK.. BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative. I don't remember what the article said. If it worked during self-test on the weasels I don't remember seeing it. Flashed the strobe on and off is as close as I can get. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: "A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed on the APR-25 azimuth indicator." Here is one reference: Bauman Mod http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/A...8/AS/ctpn.html I can't confirm that is the scope display.. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his his section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the 'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits: Guy I suspect it is not "Bowman" but "Bauman" as this sounds very much like the project he invented at Takhli about 1966-1967. Regards, Tex |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
You got most of it correct. Initial acquisition was usually done by SAM in
Low PRF therefore you got a Low light, Switching to High PRF changed the light to High. If you were in both AZ and EL sectors you got the AS (Acquisition Sector) light. Launch for the SA-2 was done on acquisition of additional signals in a two step process. Lights and tones for warning. Not the most accurate indicator, but the only one we had. Different strobe types were for frequency differentiation. Can't say more, besides I forgot the break points. Too many systems in the head since then. Les F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret) "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... I'm not a "squeaks and beeps" EW, but here's what I was taught about the sequence for the SA-2. The initial TDU (Threat Display Unit) light were for "Lo" indicating a low PRF (pulse recurrence frequency), as you got lit up with both beams of the Fan Song (Az & El), you got a "Hi" for high PRF. When missile data upload was taking place, another frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got the "Launch" light. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote: Buzzer wrote: On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:35:18 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: The AS light on the APR-36/37 was the simple version of the ALR-31 on the weasel which I think had been around for a couple years. You're right and I was misremembering. It seems that APR-37 was essentially the APR-26 with that modification, but that APR-26 itself wasn't improved. Here's what I've got, from Jenkins' book on the Thud: "The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26 replacement in April [1966]. Not to disparage Jenkins, who's done great research on the F-105, but "potential replacement in April (1966)" doesn't track well with my experience. I arrived at Korat in May of '66 and at that time the APR-25/26 was just being initially installed in the operational jets. We had maybe a dozen airplanes out of 40 or so with the "vector" gear. Installation of the entire fleet wasn't completed until mid-June. I hadn't even seen or been briefed on the RHAW gear while in training at Nellis through April of '66. To be seeking replacement before initial installation doesn't make any sense. As noted below, this was the WWIII fit, and they were just starting procurement. The question was whether they'd confirm procurement of the APR-26 or go with the HRB-Singer set. Almost no sets of either type had yet been fitted to trials a/c, and only a few of the APR-25/-26/IR-133 to the F-100F WWs. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. The 934-1B differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2 missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Only after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and the improved sets redesignated APR-37." I'm not a "squeaks and beeps" EW, but here's what I was taught about the sequence for the SA-2. The initial TDU (Threat Display Unit) light were for "Lo" indicating a low PRF (pulse recurrence frequency), as you got lit up with both beams of the Fan Song (Az & El), you got a "Hi" for high PRF. H'mm that seems a bit off. Normally, fire control sets search at a lower PRF, then track at a higher one. FWIW, the first available site I could find credits Fan Song C/E with the following PRFs: PRF 828-1440 Search. 1656-2880 Trk. Fan Song B and F would show similar differences in PRF, although the specific numbers would probably be different. You need the lower PRF for search/acquisition to eliminate second time around range ambiguity, which also allows you to use longer (hence more powerful) pulses. But you lose range resolution, so once detected the radar will normally switch to a higher PRF for tracking (same with the F-4, btw). So, Low PRF would indicate general search mode, High PRF would indicate tracking _somebody_ (at shorter range). That at least would be the case with the APR-25. While you'd undoubtedly BE in both beams while the radar was tracking you or someone close to the same LoS (as Marshall mentions in his LB II book, tracking usually had to done manually after pods arrived), the PRF lights wouldn't be indicating position in the beam per se, but just the radar PRF, a far simpler procedure. Location in the beam sweep was a later addition -- That was what the ALR-31 (and the same or similar circuit in the APR-36, attached to the A/S light) would do. From the Air & Space article Bob referenced: "Klimec set out to improve on the existing RHAW system, which only told you that a SAM was looking, or launching, and gave only a general bearing to the radar source. At this early stage in anti-radar development, before specially designed missiles that home in on radar signals were available, the target still had to be visually acquired and attacked with conventional weapons like rockets, guns, or bombs. "The Fan Song was one of the first electronic scanning radars--it directed its energy without having to move its antenna. "The way the Soviets built the Fan Song was to have [one] radar that tracks both the aircraft and the missile," Klimec says. "It would scan across 20 degrees and then go off the air, because you had to shut the radar down in order to preclude any kind of problems with the energy coming back inside and blowing out equipment--and then it would fly back, come back on again, and scan 20 degrees, and go off the air." "The radar cycled several times per second and was directed so that a targeted aircraft was located at the center of the scan sector, which enabled the missile to be maneuvered freely inside, while the target was simultaneously tracked by the radar. "So it dawned on me that if we could detect when the radar came on, and we could determine when the aircraft was illuminated on the radar in the main beam, and we could detect when the radar shut down to fly back, we could calculate the position of the plane relative to the scan sector," Klimec says. It was known that the Fan Song took about 100 milliseconds to complete a scan, so if an aircraft was "painted" by the radar 50 milliseconds after the radar turned on, the aircraft was in the mid-point of the scan sector. "And the aircraft ordinarily did not get to the center of the sector unless somebody put him there--and since the tracking scan system could only track one aircraft to make an intercept on one aircraft, if you found yourself in the center of the scan sector and you found you stayed there, then you knew somebody had selected you as a target," he says. "After design engineers devised equipment to verify Klimec's theory, he began monitoring the Eglin Fan Song simulator's emissions from the top of a hangar. "I talked on the phone to the radar site and got them to move it a little bit, and we verified that we could detect when the radar came on to start the scan, we could detect when it went off the air, and we could detect when we got the large spike of energy as the main beam came by," Klimec says. Klimec's innovation eventually allowed fighter crews to know whether or not they were targets and to take action only if they were." So, prior to the ALR-31/APR-36, you might be in one or both beams and getting High PRF, but not be in the center of the Fan Song sweep because it was actually targeting some other a/c close to the same angle between the radar and you, leading to unnecessary maneuvers and high pulse rates. You'd also pick up the L-band guidance signal, again without necessarily being the target. When missile data upload was taking place, another frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got the "Launch" light. Right, the guidance used the C-band dish on the left of this picture (the E/F or G-band tracking antennas are the horizontal and vertical troughs): http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/fan_song2.jpg This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his his section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the 'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits: "A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed on the APR-25 azimuth indicator." While the "correlate a C-band missile guidance signal to a specific E-F band signal" tracks with what I said above regarding "launch" lites, it doesn't equate with what the definition of the AS light was. I know, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. The A/S and the above mod are two separate things. Here's what I'm talking about (again from the Air & Space article Bob pointed out): "As tactics were developed in the air, field modifications to the Wild Weasel systems continued on the ground. A key weakness of the equipment was that if several SAM sites were displayed on the scope and the light that signaled a launch was illuminated, there was no way to know which site had fired and from which direction the SAM was coming. "I heard the crews complaining about that," says Weldon Bauman, who in 1967 was a junior enlisted technician at Takhli. "And I thought Well, if I knew more about the signal, then maybe we could do something about it." Bauman became a Wild Weasel legend for devising a system similar to Bob Klemic's but that sidestepped cumbersome and lengthy procurement procedures and could be hot-wired into the aircraft in the field immediately. But to do it, he first needed access to sensitive data about the nature of SAM site radar emissions, and after convincing an EWO to escort him into the intelligence section, he got the information he needed. "I sat down and got the real-time data--the same day then was real time," Bauman says. "I found out what they were seeing and then went back and designed a circuit and it worked." When activated, Bauman's modification cleared the scope of all information except for a blip that indicated the launching site. Tom Wilson, a former F-105 EWO, marveled at Bauman's ingenuity and his modesty. "This kid had two stripes, and he was so damn smart it was unreal," Wilson says. "When I asked him how he came up with the mod, he said, "It was real easy. Just three little parts wired into the line for the scope, and a switch, and it was done.' " The AS (azimuth sector, but colloquially the "aw ****" light) meant you were illuminated by both the horizontal and elevation beams of the Fan Song at high PRF. It literally meant that you were the designated target for that particular missile system. It did NOT relate to a missile actually being launched. Right, see above. BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative. Yes, different frequency bands displayed different strobes. A Fire Can was a solid strobe, a Fan Song a three dash line, and something else (CRS strikes here) for an AI (air intercept) radar. In the high threat arena, the 25/26 was notorious for degenerating into a big "spider" in the center of the scope. Thanks. BTW, in the case of say a two-ringer growing to a three, did the strobe extend in from the periphery, or out from the center? I've always assumed it was the latter (looking similar to a PPI display), but I've never seen a source I trust which says which it was. Thanks, Guy |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ivan
blurted out: This is great stuff...Thanks for posting it. You're welcome! Anyway, are this dates correct? Yes they are. This is strange, intro team was some kind of ground personel or something else? Yes, staff personel from Eglin AFB (the Tactical Air Warfare Center_TAWC) and Nellis AFB (the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center_TFWC). Their purpose was to aid PACAF in expeditiously phasing the Rivet Haste aircraft into the combat environment, including orientation, familiarization, briefing, and evaluating the initial employment of Rivet Haste jets and crews. I also have a copy of the Project CHECO report "COMBAT SNAP: AIM-9J Southeast Asia Introduction," but Guy addressed the issue for you. Would you mind posting some other details from these both reports? No problem...anything you're looking for, specifically? The Rivet Haste report is only 22 pages. The COMBAT SNAP report is about 30 or so pages long. Juvat |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Buzzer wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: "The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26 replacement in April [1966]. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. And there we were in June 1966 sitting on the ground at Eglin with the F-4C WWIV waiting for range time on the SADS and cancelling for rain when another site was available. Here I thought and was led to believe the Eglin SADS was the only one available.. The 934-1B differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2 missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Shame they didn't have to stand up before a couple hundred pilots and say we see no compelling reason to give you a better system that would give you more confidence and might save your life! Welcome to the realities of the Vietnam War.. At the time I'm sure the APR-26 seemed adequate, and they didn't realize its shortcomings. If the APR-26 was already in low-rate production, it was probably figured that getting something into action soonest was better than waiting for something potentially better later. Jenkins describes a whole bunch of concurrent programs and fits which they were experimenting with, and just getting some F-105F Weasels completed and functional so they could test them was very difficult. There were a lot of systems that were better on paper, but which proved difficult if not impossible to make work in the time required. He also covers the APS-107 which was rejected for the Wild Weasel II (F-100F) program and later considered as a potential system (APS-107B internal for the F-105D along with the navy's ALQ-51 jammer (which later were installed in RF-101s), as well as the Bendix DPN-61 DF/homing system (the Az-el antennas) and various competing systems. Only after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and the improved sets redesignated APR-37." The original story I heard in June 1966 at the APR-25/26 class at Keesler and later from the tech reps was the missile guidance signal was feed into a dummy load. That caused the Activity Light to come on. Then when they launched and switched to active guidance at a higher power the Launch Light came on. Another variation on that was they interrogated the missiles at low power before launch that gave the Activity and then went high power to guide giving Launch light. The latter would seem to make more sense assuming that the VPADF were really 'playing the L-band' to make us think they'd launched when they hadn't. I wonder if our receivers would be sensitive enough to detect a dummy load at the time -- after all, the whole point was to warm everything up without warning everyone in the area that they were ready to go (like a radar in standby). No mention at all of how the missile was quided until I took the APR-36/37 factory course in 1968 at ATI/ITEK in Palo Alto, CA. Here they went into the guidance pulse train and what the APR-37 looked at. They talked like this was recent intel and here the info had been around for years. snip It may well have been recent. They only got the missile prox. fuse and some guidance data in Feb. 1966, from a Firebee drone that they flew around trolling for SAMs, relaying the data to an RB-47 just before the drone was destroyed. And then we got our hands on complete SA-2 systems after the Six Day War. Guy |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Buzzer wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: "A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed on the APR-25 azimuth indicator." Here is one reference: Bauman Mod http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/A...8/AS/ctpn.html Thanks. I can't confirm that is the scope display.. One would hope not;-) Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Vietnam The Helicopter War Large HC Book 189p | Disgo | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 6th 04 05:19 PM |
Dogfights in Vietnam | Mike | Military Aviation | 11 | July 30th 03 09:47 PM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |
Trying to make sense of Vietnam air war | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 6th 03 11:13 PM |
Vietnam search to continue to find remains of Waterford pilot | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 2nd 03 10:30 PM |