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
|
|||
|
|||
Not disparaging ground troops anywhere, just pointing out the hazards
to our aircraft were higher over North Vietnam than over the south. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
on aircraft of this era. Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried. I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry? I've heard it was a Hughes set, but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it ever carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note, what did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was mostly a ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at short range? And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated from its Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable missile (other than Genie!). Thx Ian On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:18:07 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote: On 5/11/05 3:27 PM, in article , "John Carrier" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote: As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100 beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial. While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon. Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did outperform the Crusader. Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound for air-to-ground!" R / John An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs on Tomcats... --Woody |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"IRBusch" wrote in message ... I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info on aircraft of this era. Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried. Nope. There was a capability to carry and launch the AIM-9C (radar sidewinder), but I don't think the missile ever made it to operational status. There was never a provision to carry Sparrow on the operational F-8. The F-8U3 Crusader III (three prototypes built) was Sparrow capable. The Crusader III lost a fly-off to the lower performance F-4 Phantom in 1958. No examples survive. SNIP R / John |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
John Carrier wrote:
"IRBusch" wrote in message ... I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info on aircraft of this era. Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried. Nope. There was a capability to carry and launch the AIM-9C (radar sidewinder), but I don't think the missile ever made it to operational status. Apparently it was carried for a time in Vietnam, typically one -9C and 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. Guy |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
IRBusch wrote:
I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info on aircraft of this era. Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried. BTW, the Matra 530 had interchangeable heads, IR and SARH. I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry? The whole fire-control system was designated the MG-13. I don't know if the radar had a separate AN/APG- or APQ- designation, but I've never seen one attributed to it. Hughes own primer, "Introduction to Airborne Radar", just refers to the MG-13. I've heard it was a Hughes set, but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it ever carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note, what did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was mostly a ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at short range? Okay, since you asked. From R.F. Dorr's book on the 101, describing a typical F-101B intercept: "At midnight, a blip appears on the SAGE surveillance radar screen. It is declared an unknown. The SAGE computer, using target position input information from various radars throughout the air defense early warning system, quickly computes the logical scramble force as being the 60th FIS at Otis AFB on Cape Cod since the 60th can make a minimum-time intercept. The computer automatically sounds the scramble horn at the 60th alert hangar. . . [crews run to a/c, don poopy suits, get in]. "As the pilot of each a/c starts engines, the RO [Radar Operator] calls the tower for scramble instructions. "'Uh, Roger, RED 1. Callsigns X-RAY KILO zero-one and zero-two. Buster angels three-zero. Heading zero-nine-zero after Otis scramble corridor. Contact Otis departure control on three-zero-two-point-seven when airborne. Cleared to taxi.' "While taxiing, the RO calls off the taxi checklist tothe pilot and sets his datalink set to his callsign suffix number.This establishes a link between the SAGE computer and the a/c. 'Otis tower, X-RAY KILO zero-one flight number one for the active.' "'Roger, zero-one, you are cleared for immediate takeoff. Contact departure when airborne.' [both a/c take off] "'Zero-two, let's go to departure frequency'. 02 acknowledges and both ROs tune in the [dep. freq, contact departure control and get further instructions]. "'Roger, Otis. As the climb continues at military power ('buster'),the RO is finishing the climb checklist call-out to the pilot and adjusting the MG-13 fire-control radar for best performance and display [. . . They change frequencies from dep. control to the GCI station, Grayfish]. "'Roger, zero-one flight', the ground controller responds. 'We need altitude, heading, a/c type, speed and tail numbers on this guy. Follow dolly'. Zero-one flight knows from the last instruction to follow the commands and information provided on the datalink cockpit displays and to observe radio silence until the identification is complete. "The command attitude indicatiors in both Voodoos indicate 35,000 ft. and the command mach meter 0.9 Mach. The datalink steering dot on the pilot's radar display and the target marker circle on the RO's scope indicate dead-ahead. The climb is continued to 35,000ft. and both a/c level off and set their speeds at the command Mach number. The RO's target marker circle indicates that the target is dead-ahead at 45 miles. O2 breaks away from 01 when the target marker indicates 30 miles and the pilot's steering dot shows a sudden deflection. (In the ADC tactics scenario, one of the RED a/c makes the [ID] pass while the other stands off for a firing pass if needed. In this case, the SAGE computer is transmitting information to 02 that will result in his being positioned at the standoff location. The pilot-RO cockpit exchange continues as 01 presses in for the [ID]pass . . . "'Target dead-ahead at 25miles. Confirm viz-ident mode selected.' The pilot checks his armament control panel and confirms that the mode selector switch is positioned for an [ID] pass. Suddenly, the target marker circle deflects to the left and centers at a range of 20miles. The RO continues to search the area of the target marker circle for his assigned target. "'Contact forty-five degrees port at 20 miles. Port. Disregard dolly.' The SAGE computer has fulfilled its function of getting the interceptor grossly positioned in the target area. The intercept control is now in the hands of the RO and he instructs the pilot to disregard the datalink indications. The RO quickly analyses the target blip drift characteristics on his screen and determines that the gross geometry is one of reciprocal headings with lateral displacement; his first action is to instruct the pilot to turn left using twenty degreesof bank ('port' command). He continues to watch the drift characteristicsof the blip while reporting range and azimuth to the pilot. The pilot continuously scans for a visual sightingof the target. Luckily, tonight is a clear night. However, with weather present or the target 'blacked out' (nav. lights turned off), the pilot must depend on the RO to keep him informed of target position and to accurately and safely bring the a/c into final visual [ID] position. "In the port turn, the RO notices that the blip is sliding out in azimuth on his scope, so he instructs the pilot to increase his rate-of-turn to maximum. 'Port hard as possible.' The RO notices that the drift has stopped and he watches his scope for the first indicating that the blip is starting to drift towards the center of his scope. Here,safety is of paramount importance because should the target hold at one azimuth on the RO's B-scan type display, a collision is certain if something in the geometry is not changed. "'Target 45 degrees port at15 miles, overtake 780 knots.' At 14 miles, the blip starts to move rapidly across the scope toward zero azimuth. 'Ease off. Hold.' The RO has the drift he is looking for and he now begins to 'fine-tune' the geometry so that the target is placed on the nose at 10 miles with ninety degrees of heading difference, commonly called the 'ninety-ten' tactic in ADC. The pilot increases or decreases his bank angle and holds as the RO instructs. 'Target dead-ahead at 10 miles.' "The RO begins to look for the blip to start drifting to port as the target passes the nose. He sees the drift starting to develop and instructs the pilot 'Port'. The pilot establishes 20 degrees of bank. This turn rate stops the drift and the target is staying dead-ahead in azimuth. The Voodoo is in a turn that will eventually result in a roll-out dead-astern of the target at about 5 miles. The range-rate meter starts to show a fall-off in overtake. The RO continues to fine-tune the geometry through instructions to the pilot to ensure that an excessively long roll-out range does not occur that will result in more time for the intercept; likewise, he must assure that a dangerous situation is not set up by rolling out too close to the target. 'Target dead-ahead at 5 miles. Overtake 50knots.' An optimum roll-out has resulted. "'Re-chec viz-ident and armament safety switch off and safety-wired.' 'Roger,' the pilot confirms. "'Fly the dot,' instructs the RO. He has locked his radar onto the target and released the intercept control back to the pilot. He continues to give the pilot geometry and overtake information as the range is closed towards the final intercept point. The pilot flies the MG-13 FCS computer-generated steering dot; it will take the a/c to a position that is two hundred feet right of thetargetand twohundredyardsslantrange, at which point hewillgeta pull-out signal that indicates that the final position has been reached. From that point, the pilot controls the intercept to a position that is optimum for ID purposes. "'Target 3 degrees port, 700 yards. Overtake is holding at 50 kts.' "'Roger. Tally-ho,' the pilot replies as he confirms a visual on the target. "'Target 5 degrees port, 200 yds. Overtake 10 kts.' "'Roger. I have a pull-out signal.' Stand-by for ID light.' "'Roger. Ready with ID light. Overtake slightly positive. Good position.' The pilot adjusts the throttles so that he is at the same speed as the target. "'ID light on.' The RO switches on the 8-inch sealed beam light on the fuselage near his cockpit. A commercial airliner is readily identified as window shades begin to open and passengers gawk out at the Voodoo stalking them in the night [. .. .] "As the pilot flies formation with the target, the RO calls in the required information to Ground Control Intercept control. 'Grayfish, X-RAY KILO zero-one.' "'Roger, zero-one. Ready to copy.'[the RO gives the info] "'Roger,zero-one. Clear target and follow dolly. Zero-two will be joining up in approximately five minutes.' "The SAGE computer transmits datalink information that will result in their rejoining and returning to base. They are handed off to Otis approach control and brought in for a GCA and landing. . ." Note that this was a radar intercept, the IRSTS wasn't used. And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated from its Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable missile (other than Genie!). No. Guy |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
AFIK the 101-wonder's MG13 was essentially the same as the 102's MG10
with the addition of guidance comps to launch the AIR2 Genie unguided nuke. Never heard of one carrying radar Falcons - Pk of which was such that the minimum number to be launched was 3, although I did kill a Firebee drone with a singleton. BTW our 104As couldn't handle an F8 - until we got the Dash 19 engine and then it was a different story. With that added thrust we could take an F4 or a 106 by working the vertical. As for the F4, I had flown the T6 (SNJ to y'all) in training so the F4's quirks were like old home week in recalibrating my yaw-sensing butt, to where I was using a tad of adverse aileron to increase the roll rate in high AOA, plus asymmetrical thrust in zero-AOA vertical reverses. Now, if that bird had just had a canopy like the Sabre or T33 .. . . but I guess you weren't supposed to look out when flying interceptors. Engineers must listen to pilots! Walt BJ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
IRBusch wrote:
I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info on aircraft of this era. Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried. No Sparrows - they required a CW illuminator to guide, and the F-8s never had one. The R.530 was a different beast (A very different beast - perhaps the most ineffective AAM ever made, and that includes the AIM-4 and the Soviet AA-1) It used some manner of monopulse techniques to catch returns from the pulse radar of its launcher. It was a rather contrary critter - I woldn't be surprised of one came off its rail and fell up. I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry? I've heard it was a Hughes set, but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it ever carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note, what did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was mostly a ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at short range? And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated from its Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable missile (other than Genie!). The radar for the MG-13 (And for all the Air Force Rocket/Missile interceptors) was the APG-37. 250 KW peak power, Palmer Scan in search, Conical Scan to track. It should be able to pick up a typical target out to 30 NM or so, and map out to 200, more or less. What was different between versions were the control setups (Single seat vs. Sedan) the Weapons Computers (FFAR, Falcon, or Genie), and the data link integration. Most flavors also had CSTI (Control Surface Tie In) which would send signals to the autopilot to automatically follow the steering dot. Oh - and th elater versions in the Century Series airplanes got IRST systems, as well. It was complicated, pushing the State of the Art a lot. For raw power and utility as an Interceptor radar, it didn't get surpassed until the F-4s came out. The back seater had all sorts of stuff to do - selecting radar modes, interpreting the scope, locking on the radar to the target (And making sure it stayed locked on), evaluating possible ECM and applying what ECCM stuff he could, weapons selection, and, often, evaluating and propping up a degraded system as various tubes gave up the ghost. The single-seat pilots (F-86D/L, F-102, F4D) did all that too, and flew the airplane in their copious free time. -- Pete Stickney Java Man knew nothing about coffee. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
IRBusch wrote: I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info on aircraft of this era. Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried. BTW, the Matra 530 had interchangeable heads, IR and SARH. 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. However, this would not have had the same CW parameters as required for Sparrow. I know USN F-8s never supported AIM-7 at all and I very much doubt that the French ones could have either. Apparently the typical load of Matra 530s was one each IR and SARH. The improved Super 530 was never adapted to the Crusader, which switched to Sidewinder and Matra 550 Magic in the 1980s. Given how bad the standard 530 was, Magic was an improvement. (the 5390 was supposedly was so bad that Israeli Mirage III pilots preferred guns, even without the sort of ROE issues that plagued Sparrow in Vietnam. [snip cool info on the F-101 and SAGE intercepts. Thanks!] -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"zero" versus "oscar" versus "sierra" | Ron Garret | Piloting | 30 | December 20th 04 08:49 AM |
S-Tec System 20/30 Versus System 40/50 | Marco Leon | Piloting | 3 | November 9th 04 04:15 PM |
Buying a plane versus renting | RD | Owning | 35 | March 5th 04 09:42 PM |
Garmin versus Lowrance | RD | Piloting | 15 | January 2nd 04 04:32 PM |
Cessna 340 Tie down versus Hangar | endre | Owning | 11 | July 17th 03 01:49 AM |