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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... Ed, your between war F-4 stories are some of your most interesting. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |