Vietnam era F-4s Q

The better D radar range was due totally to the antenna size. The E had
virtually the same guts (at the beginning) but the smaller radar dish to
accommodate the gun cut down on antenna gain.

On an F-5 size target, head-on, 30 miles was a great pick-up in an E.
Tankers were routinely well outside 70 in beacon mode and plenty of time for
a decent tanker turn point parallel rendezvous.

I really liked the old CRT scope better than the DSCG/MSDG scope of later
years. I missed the backseat hydraulic gauge. I know why they did it, but
should have put a separate video display in for Pave Spike, etc.

Never had radar overheating problems (that I recall) at Eglin in the summer
in E models, or at Kadena or PI in Cs or Ds

Didn't fly the Rhino in combat, but it had decent systems, just not great
systems. Best airframe mod. to the G model was the dual Tach gas gauge in
the rear cockpit (IMHO).

Les

"Walt BJ" wrote in message
om...
I remember the D radar having about 20-25% better range than the E.
the E wasn't all that bad; ran about 50-60 miles on other F4s over
water. Our 390TFS Ds could pickup tankers at 75 miles over Thailand.
(Cherry anchor) I had a USN F4J pilot in my back seat one night
gunship escort mission ( can't for the life of me remember why)and he
marveled at the radar pickup. I asked him why he thought it was soo
good when he was flying the J model. He told me after about 4
'standard' carrier landings the radar wasn't so hot anymore. One
problem we had with th E was overheating on the ground at DaNang in
the summer trying to run bit checks taxiing out. So we left it in
standby and did them airborne.
AFIK we never took a gun pod North. The O6s had an E with a CL drop
and 2 SUU23s on the wings but I don't think anyone below full bird got
to fly it. We did hang SUU23s on our Ds for in-country work. Going
North it was CL, mers, ters sometimes, AIM9s and AIM7s and a jammer
pod, usually in the rt fwd Sparrow well. Ed's on the money on the
36/37 RHAW gear - I monitored the audio and kept an eye on the AZ
strobe when the audio sounded interesting.
As for over-all radar performance TAC blew it when they went to the
storage tube instead of a straight CRT. They threw away at least 3 db
performance. AMAF the average D was about equal to our F102As at RG
AFB. (We had the best radar people I ever met in the USAF). We could
pick up 135s and B52s well over 100 miles over land. FWIW a CRT will
let a trained eye pick up a target as low as minus 3 db compared to
the average noise level - because it's there all the time and the
noise jumps around. In the storage tube the average noise level
becomes the cut-off level and you have a nice clean scope and threw
away maybe 10% of your range capability.
Also - dropping IRSTS was really dumb. I used the Deuce's IR system
and while it had bugs (LN2 leaks, usually) when it was working it was
superb. Very flexible, very sneaky, very good at low level - TAC F100D
low level.
BTW every fighter I flew except the F86F had AI radar in it so I was
no cherry when I got in the F4 - by then I had about 3000 hours
pushing a TV around the sky.
Walt BJ

"Les Matheson" wrote:

If your WSO didn't do RHAW checks and use the radar to clear for traffic,
you should have busted him for stupidity.

Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO retired

You can be certain that the matter was discussed in great detail in
debrief. Most of the WSO's that I flew with learned quickly.

And, it shouldn't be limited to just WSO's in peacetime.
Front-seaters, just out of training in those "between the wars" years
were often just as clueless. I've mentioned here in the past the guys
who busted TAC checks on Bardenas Range because they chased a run away
INS and didn't cross check pilotage, dead reckoning, radar predictions
and (most obviously) Bardenas TACAN right on the range.

There were also nose-gunners who, having never been threatened, flew
without paying attention to the RHAW--I explained carefully to them
that it is always good to know who is looking at you. It also degrades
your reputation if other folks regularly come home with a lot of 16mm
color film of your aircraft.

Similarly there were a lot of guys in both cockpits who hadn't figured
out that when we cruised down the Med, back and forth between Incirlik
and Torrejon, that painting the area ahead in 200 mile scope could let
you find your way quite nicely from coast out to Sardinia, to Sicily,
to Crete, to Cyprus--all distinct island outlines.

Yeah, the good ol' days. I sure miss it!!!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Buzzer wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:40:46 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Buzzer wrote:

The APS-107D was an excellent, versatile system.

Let me see, for comparison sake, would you prefer to ride in my pit
downtown with an APS-107D or in an E-model with an APR-36/37,
particularly if we are going to be hunting and killing SAM sites? Do
you like colored lights better than a clear vector scope display and
TDU? Better launch detection than the AS (Azimuth Sector) light and
sequence logic of the 36/37?

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?

OK, if the 107 is the only game in town, which means "pre-E model"
then you've got to go with it. The APR-25/26 was a reasonable system,
but subject to a lot of false signals and definitely capable of being
saturated. But, once the E comes along with the 36/37, the
ideosyncracies of the 107 make it a lousy choice.

We're talking debriefing hundreds of crews. A small percentage
complained at first and wished for their old APR-25/26. Over time the
complaints went down and some even liked the system...

"some even liked" is a long way from your first "an excellent,
versatile system." I'm certain that with more experience with the 107
I would have felt more comfortable, but in only a handful of combat
rides in the D, I felt totally naked. I badly wanted my E-model back.

The 36/37 became so reliable for me, that I could tell my backseater
"true or false" just based on the audio, without going to the display.

When we got the ALR-46 installed in the Spring of '73, we weren't
going high threat anymore, but the system looked great. The only scary
part was when the tech reps were asking us to do F-4 to F-4 locks on
each other, with and without pods operating to see what the display
did. I couldn't help but wondering that if they didn't know for sure
what our own radars would do, how could we have confidence that they
knew what the enemy radar would show?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Ed, your between war F-4 stories are some of your most interesting.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I flew the E and D in SEA and then the C model in Europe for four
years after. All three models had a radar that could reach out for
mapping and beacon targets to 200 miles. Clearly at that range the
data presented was very general. Scans were horizontal, +/- 60 degrees
from center. C and D offered two bar scan while the E had a three bar
scan.

APQ-72 (F-4B) and APQ-100 were almost identical for A-A use, the main
difference being that the Air Force required the latter to have an
adjustable range strobe for bombing (not a very useful feature, actually,
given the way it was implemented).

Think NUKE. The adjustable range bombing strobe (manual screw driver
adjustment in the C model) was used to set the range strobe for timer
calculations in radar nuke deliveries. Most used five mile strobe, but
the good bombers used four mile strobe and we could drop radar
low-angle drogue or lay-downs well within 400 feet. It wasn't useful
for conventional weapons delivery.

It was the latter I was thinking of, re its usefulness.

The ground lock-on in boresight for Dive Toss (10 mile scope in D and
5 mile in E models) was automatic ranging input to the weapons release
computer for conventional delivery. Didn't require and strobe
adjustments, simply lock on and designate the target.

Yeah, I just wasn't sure if there were any major internal changes to the radar,
or if it was purely due to connecting it to the new WRCS.

Typical max. contact ranges on a MiG in
Vietnam seem to be in the 20-30 n. mile range; I've got one account
claiming a contact at 33 or maybe it was 35nm, which was unusual.

Clearly a function of radar cross section and aspect of the target.
Head on a MiG is mighty small. Tankers were easy to lock on fifty mile
scope. And with tanker beacon mode, I had a good GIB who regularly
like to take 120 mile "Judy".

Yup, which is why I specified MiG.

In addition to the wide sweep of
120 degrees, there's also a narrow 60 deg. sweep selectable; there's also a
choice of one or _THREE_ (not two; Ed's memory is playing him false here)
bar scan.

I don't have my F-4 -1 any more (fervently wish that I did!), but I'm
pretty sure that the C had two bar scan and the E had 3 bar.

I don't think so, Ed, unless your C's were somehow unique. Both the -34 (change
0, 15 Feb 1979, and changes up to 9) and the rear cockpit diagram from the
F-4C-1 (reprinted in the Detail and Scale book on the F-4C and D) show 1 and 3
bar for both C and D.

Didn't
fly the D enough to really have much memory other than of the accursed
APS-107D radar warning fiasco.

snip

Most of the F-4s in SEA flying from Thai bases were E models by '72.
There were no D models at Korat in '72 until a deployment from Korea
of the 35th TFS. Tahkli got the deployed folks from Seymour Johnson in
E models. Udorn which was primary for MiG-CAP flew both Ds and Es. The
AIM-9J was quite reliable

Well, that's being a bit optimistic. 4 kills in 31 attempts (pK .126),
with four of those attempts involving failures to launch, isn't all that
much better than the AIM-9B/E. Admittedly, probably four if not more of
the misses weren't the fault of the missile but of the inadequate
pre-combat testing, which assumed a far greater range for low angle shots,
especially at high-Q, than proved to be the case.

Stats are often misleading. Pure numbers don't tell the stories about
who was shooting, what the conditions were, etc. I never had a doubt
that if the missile growled, it would do the job. I also had enough
time on target to be over the "buck fever" that caused a lot of guys
to unleash the "white wingman" simply because there was a MiG (or at
least an aircraft) in the forward quadrant.

Combat Snap isn't just stats, Ed. It gives the basic firing conditions and the
observed results for every attempted AIM-9J launch in SEA. Accompanying text
expands on the problems experienced. Most were mainly due to rushing the
missile into service with inadequate testing, but there's no doubt that the
firing envelope against a maneuvering target was far wider than was the case for
a -9B or E. Madden's second kill on 9 September demonstrated that. But your
belief that if the missile growled, it would do the job is optimistic, as was
shown during the kill scored on 16 September, when 8 AIM-9Js were fired in a
low-aspect, high Q tail chase at altitudes of 50 to 500 feet AGL, G never
exceeded 1. Chevy 1 fired his four, with the following results:

1. Miss. Good tone -- guided, lost in haze.

2. Miss. Good tone -- hit ground.

3. Miss. Good tone -- hit ground.

4. Miss. Guided -- lost in haze.

Chevy 3 then fired his four, as follows:

5. Miss. Ballistic -- Marginal tone.

6. Miss. Ballistic -- Marginal tone.

7. Miss. Good tone -- Guided, no detonation.

8. Kill. Aided by Mig maneuver.

Assuming that shots 5 and 6 were poor shots, misses on shots 1 through 4 were
almost certainly due to firing at excessive range, which was not the fault of
the crews in this case. After some urgent questions had been sent back to the
U.S. following this engagement, testing established that the maximum range in
these conditions was considerably less than had been thought, and in fact was
less than that of the AIM-9E. This was found to be due to the torque feedback
servo unit added to the AIM-9J, which tended to overcontrol in low angle-off
shots and thus **** off energy, reducing range. Shot 7's failure was likely due
to fuzing, exactly the same as the AIM-9E.

Guy

Buzzer wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:20:16 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Removed and replaced by the forward antennas (and maybe the pre-amps) for
the RWR in the Air Force a/c.

Late 1966 F-4C APR-25 install had the forward pre-amps just behind the
antennas, and then later in the F-4D APS-107 had some under the radar
package and later moved out to the bottom sides and to the rear on the
donkey.....

I seem to remember something about the IR package on the radar was
replaced with the CW package for the sparrows. So the IR would have
been long gone before the APR-25 install?

snip

Hi, Bob, I don't know that any AAA-4s were ever actually installed on the Cs:
IIRR the first Cs lacked the donkey dick altogether, and it was added back on
as they needed a place to put the forward APR-25 antennas and pre-amps. CW
was original equipment.

Guy

Buzzer wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:40:46 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Buzzer wrote:

The APS-107D was an excellent, versatile system. Much better launch
detect and on some aircraft they could be switched to the forward
antennas so the pod jamming didn't bother as much. Just glad I didn't
have to work on them six months after they were installed and all the
little rf cables had come apart!G

Let me see, for comparison sake, would you prefer to ride in my pit
downtown with an APS-107D or in an E-model with an APR-36/37,
particularly if we are going to be hunting and killing SAM sites? Do
you like colored lights better than a clear vector scope display and
TDU? Better launch detection than the AS (Azimuth Sector) light and
sequence logic of the 36/37?

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?

Guy

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:59:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
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?

OK, if the 107 is the only game in town, which means "pre-E model"
then you've got to go with it.

There were some F-4E that had a newer version of APS-107 installed. I
worked on them at Eglin in 1968. The cables to the processor were
about a 1/4 inch short. Amazing they didn't rip out after one flight.
I don't remember the sequence, but I think they were the first into
the APR-36/37 mod line. I don't remember or never knew the reason for
changing to the APR-36/37. My guess is the AS light on the APR-36/37
won out.

The APR-25/26 was a reasonable system,
but subject to a lot of false signals and definitely capable of being
saturated. But, once the E comes along with the 36/37, the
ideosyncracies of the 107 make it a lousy choice.

We're talking debriefing hundreds of crews. A small percentage
complained at first and wished for their old APR-25/26. Over time the
complaints went down and some even liked the system...

"some even liked" is a long way from your first "an excellent,
versatile system." I'm certain that with more experience with the 107
I would have felt more comfortable, but in only a handful of combat
rides in the D, I felt totally naked. I badly wanted my E-model back.

My first "an excellent, versatile system" is my opinon knowing what it
could do, along with debriefings. If aircrews didn't complain about
something with rhaw or pods it was almost like receving a standing
ovation.

The 36/37 became so reliable for me, that I could tell my backseater
"true or false" just based on the audio, without going to the display.

When we got the ALR-46 installed in the Spring of '73, we weren't
going high threat anymore, but the system looked great. The only scary
part was when the tech reps were asking us to do F-4 to F-4 locks on
each other, with and without pods operating to see what the display
did. I couldn't help but wondering that if they didn't know for sure
what our own radars would do, how could we have confidence that they
knew what the enemy radar would show?

They probably didn't know what our own radars would do "exactly" and
didn't know what the latest intel was on threats. Part of it was
sharing classified info that one command would have and wouldn't give
to another and part was intel.
About the same thing on the APR-25/26, APS-107, and APR-36/37 when
they came into service.
Some of the things that went on in the 60's and early 70's I wondered
if intel was really an empty office with a nameplate on the door.
Intel says no sams in the area. False strobes on multiple aircraft,
multiple flights. Three or four days later false strobes down an F-4!
Shucks I guess we better change that to sams in the area...

Juvat wrote in message . ..

5. Last question is related to Rivet Haste project F-4Es. How many of
these birds were sent to SEA in fall of 1972?

From the summary page of a report titled, "TAC Project 72A-068F: Rivet
Haste SEA Intoduction (U) Final Report" dated April 1973

This is great stuff, never see such a reports, only Michels Clashes
based on them.
Thanks for posting it.

"The introduction team was in place at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force
Base, Thailand, from 12 November 1972 to 12 January 1973. The 20 Rivet
Hasteaircraft and aircrews were integrated into the 555th Tactical
Fighter Squadron of the 432d Tactitcal Reconnaissance Wing and
consisted of all Block 48 F-4E air superiority aircraft.

During this period of introduction, the Rivet Haste aircraft flew 238
combat sorties for a total of 643.6 combat hours..."

The 20 jets did NOT show up in one wave.

The first increment of 6 Rivet Haste aircraft arrived at Udorn on 20
November...first in-theather flights were flown on 24 November. [note:
none of these 6 had APX-81 Combat Tree]

Second batch of 6 Rivet haste arrived thusly...5 on 18 December 1972,
and number 6 the following day, 19 December (delay was due to radio
failure departing George AFB with the others). All 6 jets had Combat
Tree.

Last batch of 8 arrived at Udorn on 13 January 1973. Only 4 of the 8
had Combat Tree.

Anyway, are this dates correct? Introduction team was in Thailand from
12.11.1972 to 12.01.1973 and first batch arrived on 20.11.1972 (after
8 days), last on 13.01.1973 (1 day after intro team left Thailand).
This is strange, intro team was some kind of ground personel or
something else?

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?

Ivan

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

I don't have my F-4 -1 any more (fervently wish that I did!), but I'm
pretty sure that the C had two bar scan and the E had 3 bar.

I don't think so, Ed, unless your C's were somehow unique. Both the -34 (change
0, 15 Feb 1979, and changes up to 9) and the rear cockpit diagram from the
F-4C-1 (reprinted in the Detail and Scale book on the F-4C and D) show 1 and 3
bar for both C and D.

Well, then that may explain my confusion. If the C/D had 3-bar, then
it was the E that had 2-bar. I recall there was a difference, so it
might have been a reversal of what I originally said.

And checking the R/C/P diagram from the -1 reprinted in the Detail and Scale book on
the F-4E, I see that it does indeed show 1 or 2 bar, so while you switched them, I've
managed to overlook the E having two vice three bar all these years. The lettering
is pretty small on the diagram, but that didn't stop me with the C/D, and I hereby
chastise myself severely for such an oversight. I'm just going to have to break down
and buy myself an F-4E-1 or -34.

Our C's at Torrejon weren't unique--just old.

I was trying to be gentle ;-)

Guy