F-4 chaff/flare loads

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

No flares on F-4s in SEA. (Photo-flash carts on RF-4s only). No
self-protection chaff carts either. We carried cardboard boxes (about
the size of a box of Xmas tree tinsel) in the speedbrake wells. Open
the boards to deploy. Try not to use speed brakes earlier in the
mission. One time use.

I believe that is correct for Air Force F-4s only, Ed. Navy Phantoms had
internal chaff/flare carriage (mid fuselage, both sides, close to the RAT).
_____________
José Herculano

I believe that is correct for Air Force F-4s only, Ed. Navy Phantoms had
internal chaff/flare carriage (mid fuselage, both sides, close to the
RAT).

How many of each?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

ALE-40 dispensers were added to F-4Es around '74-'75. We never got
them on C models in USAFE at all.


I saw chaff dispensers at RAF Lakenheath in '76-'77', never saw them mounted
on an F-4D though. I don't know how old they were, but they were pretty
well beat up.

In article ,
"Bob Martin" wrote:

Anyone have data on typical chaff/flare loads for F-4's, both in Vietnam and
modern day? Thanks

In the 1980s, they used to load half and half on the dispensers. Since
the flare loads were larger, it ended up as a 2:1 margin chaff/flare.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.