F-4 chaff/flare loads

Tom Cooper posted:

BTW, from what I know a USAF Lt.Col. who was in the back-seat of the IIAF
RF-4E ...used photo-flash cartriges to decoy four R-13s:

Really? By 1980 no photo-flash cart in the USAF would have done that,
wrong band of the IR spectrum...versus the IR seeker's spectrum. Thank
goodness for early generation technology theft.

the engagement happened by the day, the crew of that RF-4E said the
cartriges were so powerful, they had a feeling somebody turned a second sun
right behind their backs each time one was deployed....

Interesting that they had photo-flash carts for a day mission and not
wall-to-wall chaff bundles in the cart breeches. And awfully sharp of
the WSO to select the "Night" position on the camera control panel so
he could puke the carts...that's what he'd have to do in a USAF RF-4C
in 1973, according to an RF-4C-1 (1975) the USAF didn't have IRCM
flares yet.

Juvat

To be honest, all the details you mentioned here were completely unknown to
me so far, Juvat. Thanks for your remarks.

What I explained above is what I was told by the people who were there. They
were also very positive about the performance of the Iranian pilot of that
Phantom, Maj. Shokounia (killed by the regime in Tehran, in 1980). He and
the USAF Lt.Col. were, BTW, exchanged with the Russians for a box with a
film from some Soviet satellite, that fell into an Iranian oil-field by
mistake.

Otherwise, the USAF and the IIAF were flying intensively beyond the Soviet
borders with recce Phantoms already since 1970: initially, two USAF RF-4Cs
were used, but later the Iranians purchased RF-4Es. Most of the missions had
mixed crews, with Iranians usually flying and the USAF officers controlling
the equipment. According to what I learned about these flights so far (the
details about most of which are still kept secret for some unknown reason),
the RF-4Es used for these missions were tightly guarded and exclusively
equipped (so exclusively, that they had permanent guards while on the
ground). AFAIK, they've got even IR-linescaners (which should have been some
pretty exotic stuff at the time). Surely, only really experienced and
"smart" people were tasked to fly these missions.

BTW, in addition to the example lost in 1973, another IIAF RF-4E (again with
a mixed crew) was shot down by the Soviets sometimes in 1977 or so,
apparently in revenge for their MiG-25R shot down by an Iranian F-4E (which
almost run out of fuel while trying to intercept). I don't know what
happened with the crew, but I guess they survived too. Interestingly, the
USAF supplied two recce-Phantoms from own stocks to Iran as replacement for
every example these have lost in operations over the USSR. The situation
culminated in October 1978, with Iranian F-14s intercepting a MiG-25R high
over the Casspian Sea: subsequently the Soviets ceased all flights, and the
story was over.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:21:31 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:

[stuff snipped]

According to what I learned about these flights so far (the
details about most of which are still kept secret for some unknown reason),
the RF-4Es used for these missions were tightly guarded and exclusively
equipped (so exclusively, that they had permanent guards while on the
ground). AFAIK, they've got even IR-linescaners (which should have been some
pretty exotic stuff at the time).

The US Army had IR linescan on OV-1s in the early '60s....

John Hairell )

Juvat wrote in message . ..
Tom Cooper posted:

BTW, from what I know a USAF Lt.Col. who was in the back-seat of the IIAF
RF-4E ...used photo-flash cartriges to decoy four R-13s:

Really? By 1980 no photo-flash cart in the USAF would have done that,
wrong band of the IR spectrum...versus the IR seeker's spectrum. Thank
goodness for early generation technology theft.


I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker. I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess. My comments are aimed more at the
comment about "by 1980 it could not have worked".

While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands. An example is the modern IR countermeasures flare.
Lets say the MJU-49B.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ems/mju-49.htm

This flare is tailored to put most of its energy out in the threat
bands of interest. The page above claims 2 to 5 micrometers. This
encompasses both the near IR and the mid IR bands. Or, both uncooled
and cooled PbS detector systems. The response curves of PbS (and
other detector responses) can be found he

http://www.electro-optical.com/bb_rad/detector.htm

Despite the fact that the MJU-49B is tailored, specifically made, to
emit most of its energy in the near and mid IR bands, a significant
portion of energy is still emitted in the visible portion of the
spectrum (shorter wavelengths). And, it is easier to tailor towards
the longer waves, than it is to do so towards the shorter waves, such
as the visible band. The band of emission is tied loosely to heat
energy, less energy, longer wavelengths. Or, less heat, longer
wavelengths.

Still, the point is that flares tailored to work in the IR spectrum
still, very often, possibly even always, emit in the visible spectrum
as well.

http://www.warforum.net/gallery/disp...=lastup&pid=61

So, my question is, why could photo-flash cartridges used by the USAF
in 1980 NOT have served as an stand-in IR countermeasures flare? Has
it something to do with the fashion of dispense? Do they not light
until well away from the aircraft? Or am I missing something more
obviouse here?

Token

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Token
blurted out:

I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker.

OK

I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess.

Not surprisingly, you're impression was common back then.

While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands.

I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.

The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.

We watched a couple AVTR clips showing various IRCM techiques against
AIM-9P and L seekers and some foreign made seekers. The tests by the
guys at TAWC concludeded the photo-flash didn't decoy any seekers. And
there were remarks like, "We'd really like to show you some more neat
stuff, but you guys don't have need to know."

Additionally RF-4s had specific IR flares manufactured for their cart
breeches, not simply photo-flash carts modified to bloom early and
burn longer. I know they worked against the AIM-9 from DACT with the
MS or AL ANG.

Still, the point is that flares tailored to work in the IR spectrum
still, very often, possibly even always, emit in the visible spectrum
as well.

No problem.

I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...

Juvat

"Juvat" wrote in message
..

Yes the MC had/has some neat toys.

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



I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...

Juvat

Juvat wrote in message . ..
I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.

The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.


I can totally buy that the eject profile is wrong, and that they get
out of the track beam of the seeker before they bloom. That is one of
the major design issues with IR counter measures flares, getting them
to heat up quick, without being explosive. However, IRCM flares are
JUST short of "explosive", they have a very rapid velocity factor. If
you have ever listened to them from outside the AC, say on the ground
under the AC, they make a very distinctive "pop" on ignition, a pop
that can be heard over a pair of engines in reheat.

I mean, if you go to this page:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm
You will see that the track "beam" of a period weapon, in this case
the SA-7b, is only 1.9 degrees wide. This is the instantaneous field
of view. That means that the flare would only have to move half this
value, or .95 degrees, to be out of the beam of the weapon (assuming
the weapon is tracking the aircraft). Lets figure a beam shot (yes, I
know, not with a 7b), at mid envelope range, say 2000 yards, 6000
feet. At that range 1 degree (17.5 mils) is about 105 feet. Lets
assume an aircraft speed of about 450 knots. That means the aircraft
is moving about 750 feet / sec. Or, the flare must come up to a high
enough energy state to mask the aircraft in less than 0.15 seconds, or
150 millisecond.

As far as the photo-flash flares having "not enough heat", I can see
someone saying that, in fact I have heard similar quotes from supposed
knowing individuals, but the physics just don't work that way. Less
heat means more shift to the red end. That is why something is
described as being "white hot". So, what it amounts to is, if it is a
pyrotechnic device (and these are) it will emit at least as much in
the IR as in the visible. Infra Red emissions happen at a lower energy
state then visible light emissions. So that even when it has burned
out, and is not issuing very much visible light, it will still be
emitting in the IR. This is a generalization, but a good one for
flares.

A high school physics example here. Take a DC light bulb, say a 12
volt car lamp. Turn down the voltage getting to the lamp, the lower
the voltage, the redder the lamp will glow. Eventually the lamp will
no longer put out visible light, but will still stay hot to the touch.
It is still putting out IR, but the energy state is lower, too low to
produce "white" light.


We watched a couple AVTR clips showing various IRCM techiques against
AIM-9P and L seekers and some foreign made seekers. The tests by the
guys at TAWC concludeded the photo-flash didn't decoy any seekers. And
there were remarks like, "We'd really like to show you some more neat
stuff, but you guys don't have need to know."

Additionally RF-4s had specific IR flares manufactured for their cart
breeches, not simply photo-flash carts modified to bloom early and
burn longer. I know they worked against the AIM-9 from DACT with the
MS or AL ANG.


Yes, IR flares are specifically designed, not an adaptation of other
types of flares. The point of what I am saying is that photo-flash
flares will have some signature in the proper IR bands, but without a
doubt, it could be made better.



I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...

Juvat


lol...magic...magic with some kind of ALQ designator ;-) And that is
old tech, you should see some kind of DIRCM at work.

Token

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Token
blurted out:

However, IRCM flares are
JUST short of "explosive", they have a very rapid velocity factor. If
you have ever listened to them from outside the AC, say on the ground
under the AC, they make a very distinctive "pop" on ignition, a pop
that can be heard over a pair of engines in reheat.

Hehe...standing on the ramp I've heard the carts fire whilst
jettisoning a CL tank off a Phantom from over a mile away.

Sincere thanks for the link.

As far as the photo-flash flares having "not enough heat", I can see
someone saying that, in fact I have heard similar quotes from supposed
knowing individuals, but the physics just don't work that way.

Oops, my poor choice of words. The video we watched clearly showed
foreign (as in those from the SA-7 and an early version of the Atoll)
seekers NOT tracking a photo-flash cart either singles or pairs. I
took them at their word. Another test showed AIM-9 Lima versus Papa
flare rejection abilities in relatively clear air mass, at high
aspect. Way out at 10 miles a Papa would bite off on an IR flare.

Yes, IR flares are specifically designed, not an adaptation of other
types of flares. The point of what I am saying is that photo-flash
flares will have some signature in the proper IR bands, but without a
doubt, it could be made better.

Fair enough, I am unable to dispute your logic. I love physics, but
don't have the memory (or notes) to get very deep in the topic. But
please feel free to expound...I always like learning.

lol...magic...magic with some kind of ALQ designator ;-) And that is
old tech, you should see some kind of DIRCM at work.

Indeed, I'm long removed from a fighter cockpit to venture a WAG.

Juvat

"Juvat" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Token
blurted out:

I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker.

OK

I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess.

Not surprisingly, you're impression was common back then.

While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands.

I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.

The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.

Juvat,
I understand your points and the reasoning behind it. My question is only:
why would the crew of the RF-4E in question then explain such a story?

After all, they said they used these cartriges to decoy the missiles, and
evaded four R-3/R-13s fired by the MiG in question, and also the Soviet
pilot rammed them in desperation. OK, the Atolls were not that problematic
to evade, but an RF-4E at supersonic speed is also not that maneuvreable
either.

Do you have any idea what kind of cartriges were used at earlier times?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

Tom Cooper asked:

I understand your points and the reasoning behind it. My question is only:
why would the crew of the RF-4E in question then explain such a story?

Short answer...it would appear that since all Atolls missed, the
efficacy of photo-flash carts as IRCM was proven, at least
anecdotally. But wait...

What is missing from the story, are significant details like, time of
day (chased into the sun?), altitude of the fight, cloud cover (bright
white puffy ones)...even in the 80's the AIM-9 Papa was decoyed by
bright clouds.

After all, they said they used these cartriges to decoy the missiles, and
evaded four R-3/R-13s fired by the MiG in question, and also the Soviet
pilot rammed them in desperation.

Okay, here's a skeptical guess, merely throwing it out. What if the
MiG pilot was hosing off missiles from Max range in an clever attempt
to make the Phantom pilot turn, allowing the MiG to get closer (maybe
for a gun kill, not trusting the Atolls). BS? As the guy in the front
seat of the Phantom you would rely upon the WSO to tell you the MiG
fired a missile and which direction to break (assumes I can't see him,
i.e. he's in my vulnerable cone)

OK, the Atolls were not that problematic to evade, but an
RF-4E at supersonic speed is also not that maneuvreable either.

Indeed a big ass turn circle, which would give credence to the Max
range Atoll shot. Call me a skeptical asshole for thinking there is no
way in hell a Phantom is going to cruise Supersonic in Mil Power.

So from my perspective the supersonic RF-4 must be in Burner/Reheat/AB
and just think how much heat (IR energy) is thrown off by the exhaust
and the nozzles versus a few photo-flash carts. Based upon the TAWC
lectures and videos, I think it is unlikely photo-flash carts worked
as IR decoys under these circumstances.

As an aside, the mantra for using flares as IRCM included "ya gotta be
out of burner, and ya gotta maneuver the jet." So, here' what I'd toss
out. You've got an RF-4 going supersonic in Max AB, the WSO calls the
Atoll shots and tells the pilot to Break L/R, forcing the pilot to
Idle, Speedbrakes, and put 7.33 Gs on (and oh yeah watch out for Mach
Tuck as you slow down). Now the jet is subsonic and the fight stays
that way until they get speared by the MiG guy...AND perhaps the
mid-air was accidental.

Or you got this RF-4 going supersonic in Max AB and the pilot is smart
enough to try and keep the MiG(s) at the edge of the vulnerable cone
(out near the wingtip in terms of relative position seen from the FCP)
and out of Atoll parameters. These check-turns and extensions alter
direction, Left/Right in an attempt to keep going in the right
direction...Iran.

Tom this truly is an interesting story with so many missing variables
to ponder.

Do you have any idea what kind of cartriges were used at earlier times?

The reason that jumps out at me was the common belief that photo-flash
carts worked. There was no test data to support that belief, but what
the heck...photo-flash produce lots of light (energy) so they probably
will work as a decoy. I find absolutley nothing wrong with the logic
of that thinking (considering the infancy of IRCM).

Juvat