Vietnam era F-4s Q

(Zajcevi) wrote:

Hello

I would like to ask few questions about Vietnam era F-4s. I went
trought many sources and I found some „blank“ areas.
1. First questions are related to Phantoms radar sets. In my search I
found almost nothing about ranges (depending on RCS and heigh level of
target) , operational modes, scan patterns... of AN/APQ-72, APQ-100,
APQ-109 and AN/APG-59 (AWG-10) and differences between each types.

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.

2. Also any infos about AAA-4 IRST are missing.

In '72 when I qualified in the airplane, the IRST was deactivated in
all aircraft.

3. In the case of F-4J, were also VTAS HMS together with AIM-9H used
in combat during Linebacker? Or was AIM-9G most advanced Sidewinder
used id SEA?

J model was USN, so I can't comment. We carried AIM-9J.

4. SUU-16/ 23 gunpods were widely used with many succeses during
Rolling Thunder. But never heard that they have been used also in
Linebacker. This seems to be interesting, becouse many MiGCAPs
(mainly) consisted from F-4Ds and they missiles were unreliable
AIM-9E, from second half of 1972 not much better AIM-9J and of course
AIM-7E-2. I know that this problem was sometimes solved with adding
gun armed F-4E to MiGCAPs instead of F-4Ds. So have been gunpods
carried in 1972 by F-4Ds during missins over North Vietnam?

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 and the AIM-7E-2 wasn't bad if fired within
design parameters, unfortunately training for many didn't really
qualify folks in air/air completely.

Remember that the MiG-CAP in '72 was working closely with GCI and were
better prepared than they had been in the past to engage BVR or at
reasonable missile ranges.

The SUU-16/23 pods carried air/air were a short term solution to a
short term problem during Rolling Thunder.

5. Last question is related to Rivet Haste project F-4Es. How many of
these birds were sent to SEA in fall of 1972? Have been also other
F-4Es partially upgraded to this standard (556 mod, TISEO, Combat Tree
or LES, or their combination?

I don't know a hard number, but I'm sure that some of the historical
statisticians in the group can help with the Rivet Haste number. I'd
estimate about a dozen. Upgrade to TCTO-556, the improved switchology
was very rapid and by August virtually all of the Thailand based F-4Es
were modified. TCTO-566 was the LES/TISEO structural mod and that was
limited to the Rivet Haste (Agile Eagle) birds out of Udorn. Someone
else will have to offer numbers of Tree birds. Never had the
opportunity to fly one.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

(Zajcevi) wrote:

Hello

I would like to ask few questions about Vietnam era F-4s. I went
trought many sources and I found some „blank“ areas.
1. First questions are related to Phantoms radar sets. In my search I
found almost nothing about ranges (depending on RCS and heigh level of
target) , operational modes, scan patterns... of AN/APQ-72, APQ-100,
APQ-109 and AN/APG-59 (AWG-10) and differences between each types.

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). 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. Combat
Tree contacts could be at much greater ranges (to be expected given that
they're triggering the MiG IFF transponder), at least 60 n. miles according
to some accounts I've read. IFF interrogators were later added to the
APQ-100 and 109 at least, APX-76 IIRR. Selectable radar ranges were 10,
25, 50, 100 or 200 nm - the APQ-120 added a 5nm range scale. Lock-ons
weren't possible with 100 or 200nm selected, for sure in the case of the
APQ-100 and probably the others as well. 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. There are a large number of combinations of polarization, pulse
length, manual or auto range tracking, gate/aspect, HOJ and other
selections possible, which are far too long to list (I've got a copy of the
1F-4C-34-1-1).

Walt Bjorneby, who'll hopefully chime in, has stated in the past that the
APQ-109 was longer-ranged than the APQ-120, owing to the larger antenna.
Basic A-A options were a normal B-scan search and lock-on mode, Boresight,
or Gyro Out, the latter mode disabling the antenna stabilization relative
to the ground and allowing the WSO to move the antenna relative to the
airframe, for high off-boresight lock-ons when maneuvering. This last mode
took a fair amount of coordination betwen the two crew compared to
boresight, and required a considerable amount of practice. Boresight was
originally a wholly rear cockpit selection, but the ability of the front
seater to select it and/or start the range strobe/jump over targets (auto
acquisition) was improved several times during the war, ultimately ending
up with the T.O. 556 F-4E's near-HOTAS setup.

AFA I'm aware, the main difference between the APQ-100 and 109 was in the
latter's air to ground capability, not A-A. Hopefully "Dweezil
Dwarftosser" (John Tomany) will comment, as he has experience maintaining
most of these.

APG-59 was a high PRF Pulse Doppler (alternatively pulse) set, with a
considerably higher average power in PD mode than the earlier sets. Good
for head-on detection of look down targets, at least over water, and
apparently considerably longer ranged on closing targets than the pure
pulse sets, at least when ground clutter wasn't a problem. Friedman's
"U.S. Naval Weapons" states that it was credited with detecting a 5 sq. m.
target at 60nm, which should be considerably better than the other radars
were capable of.

2. Also any infos about AAA-4 IRST are missing.

In '72 when I qualified in the airplane, the IRST was deactivated in
all aircraft.

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


3. In the case of F-4J, were also VTAS HMS together with AIM-9H used
in combat during Linebacker? Or was AIM-9G most advanced Sidewinder
used id SEA?

J model was USN, so I can't comment. We carried AIM-9J.

Red Baron lists no AIM-9Hs fired and states that only the models through
the G/J were used. Other sources have claimed that some -9Hs were used,
but I've never seen a credible source/official evidence for this. VTAS
seems to have been one of those 'nice in theory, but a pain in practice'
fits that quickly went away. There are a few people over on r.a.m.n. that
have used it, who may be able to answer your question.


4. SUU-16/ 23 gunpods were widely used with many succeses during
Rolling Thunder. But never heard that they have been used also in
Linebacker. This seems to be interesting, becouse many MiGCAPs
(mainly) consisted from F-4Ds and they missiles were unreliable
AIM-9E, from second half of 1972 not much better AIM-9J and of course
AIM-7E-2. I know that this problem was sometimes solved with adding
gun armed F-4E to MiGCAPs instead of F-4Ds. So have been gunpods
carried in 1972 by F-4Ds during missins over North Vietnam?

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.

and the AIM-7E-2 wasn't bad if fired within
design parameters, unfortunately training for many didn't really
qualify folks in air/air completely.

Remember that the MiG-CAP in '72 was working closely with GCI and were
better prepared than they had been in the past to engage BVR or at
reasonable missile ranges.

The Combat Tree F-4Ds with the 432nd at Udorn wouldn't have wanted to carry
the gun pod, as it would limit their AIM-7E-2 carriage to two (unless they
jettisoned the gun pod), as well as decrease their fuel and up their drag.
With an F-4E along it wasn't worth it.

The SUU-16/23 pods carried air/air were a short term solution to a
short term problem during Rolling Thunder.

I wonder if Walt's guys at DaNang ever carried the gun pod on their forays
into NVN in 1972?


5. Last question is related to Rivet Haste project F-4Es. How many of
these birds were sent to SEA in fall of 1972? Have been also other
F-4Es partially upgraded to this standard (556 mod, TISEO, Combat Tree
or LES, or their combination?

I don't know a hard number, but I'm sure that some of the historical
statisticians in the group can help with the Rivet Haste number. I'd
estimate about a dozen. Upgrade to TCTO-556, the improved switchology
was very rapid and by August virtually all of the Thailand based F-4Es
were modified. TCTO-566 was the LES/TISEO structural mod and that was
limited to the Rivet Haste (Agile Eagle) birds out of Udorn. Someone
else will have to offer numbers of Tree birds. Never had the
opportunity to fly one.

Thought I had the number of the Rivet Haste birds, but can't seem to find
it. The second edition of Tony Thornborough's "The Phantom Story" will
likely have it. Michel in "Clashes" says they deployed as an already
formed squadron to Udorn and there assumed the identity of the 555th TFS,
much to the disgust of the 555th people already there who were transferred
to other squadrons. A quick perusal of my xeroxes from the first edition
of Thornborough fails to identify their previous squadron designation, but
in any case that implies that there may have been as many as 18 to 24 a/c
in the deployment, depending on assigned squadron strength at the time.
AFAIK the other TREE birds at the time were all Ds - it appears that it was
a depot fit. Initially the 432nd had 8 Combat Tree Ds which they got from
the 3rd TFW in Korea; around June 1972 they received some attrition
replacements.

Guy

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police
(Zajcevi) blurted out:


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

"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.

As stated above, the first combat mission was 24 November 1972. There
were ONLY three MiG engagements by Rivet Haste jets.

The first was on 22 December by a non-Tree jet, at night , closed to
within 4000' but could not get clearance to shoot.

Second was a during the day, the MiGs popped in and out of clouds
before a shot could be taken. [I infer a VID shot criteria, probably
due to numbers/proximity of radar contacts.]

The last was also at night, during a tail chase a max range AIM-7 shot
was taken...no luck. This was the ONLY missile shot by a Rivet Haste
jet.

I also have a copy of the Project CHECO report "COMBAT SNAP: AIM-9J
Southeast Asia Introduction," but Guy addressed the issue for you.

Juvat

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?

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

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?

We're not talking about working on them or accessing components here,
we're talking about getting easily interpretable missile threat
warnings in a combat environment.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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?

We're not talking about working on them or accessing components here,
we're talking about getting easily interpretable missile threat
warnings in a combat environment.

Well, speaking as a former ECM tech on the F-4E, most pilots would seem
to prefer having a coffee cup holder than an ECM suite that they
actually have to know how to use...

....and you wouldn't *believe* how snippy some of those guys got when we
loaded ALQ-119 and -131 pods on the planes (early 1980s, well after most
plane drivers figured out that ECM is a Good Thing in a high-threat
environment).

--


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

Chad Irby wrote:

Well, speaking as a former ECM tech on the F-4E, most pilots would seem
to prefer having a coffee cup holder than an ECM suite that they
actually have to know how to use...

Unfortunately, you're all too right. The date in your next paragraph
explains why.

...and you wouldn't *believe* how snippy some of those guys got when we
loaded ALQ-119 and -131 pods on the planes (early 1980s, well after most
plane drivers figured out that ECM is a Good Thing in a high-threat
environment).

In the early '80s we'd been non-combatant for about ten years. We
fired up the ECM and RWR for serious only for a Red Flag deployment
and the written Stan/Eval test questions for the annual TAC check were
all from a study guide. I had the same issue when flying the F-4 out
of Torrejon, post-Vietnam. I'd wait after take-off for the WSO to turn
on the RWR, usually in vain. I'd wait for the WSO to reach out with
the radar and search for traffic that had been called by departure,
usually in vain.

We carried the 101 or 119 the whole time I was at Torrejon, bolted in
the left forward missile well. Never allowed to turn it on in
peace-time---"you'll compromise the programs" or "you'll put RAPCON
off the air". Motivation to study without a threat or an opportunity
to practice will deteriorate.

You can believe that we knew exactly what the RWR was doing in the
Hunter/Killer mission. And, we didn't object too much to dragging the
ALQ-87 or 101 around, even though we never turned it on (it
interferred with the Weasel's stuff). The pod was a last ditch aid to
SAM evasion when face-to-face with a missile airborne.

Now, the guys know exactly what the value is and they have lots of
opportunity to practice.


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

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?

We're not talking about working on them or accessing components here,
we're talking about getting easily interpretable missile threat
warnings in a combat environment.

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...

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

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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:

Well, speaking as a former ECM tech on the F-4E, most pilots would seem
to prefer having a coffee cup holder than an ECM suite that they
actually have to know how to use...

Unfortunately, you're all too right. The date in your next paragraph
explains why.

...and you wouldn't *believe* how snippy some of those guys got when we
loaded ALQ-119 and -131 pods on the planes (early 1980s, well after most
plane drivers figured out that ECM is a Good Thing in a high-threat
environment).

In the early '80s we'd been non-combatant for about ten years. We
fired up the ECM and RWR for serious only for a Red Flag deployment
and the written Stan/Eval test questions for the annual TAC check were
all from a study guide. I had the same issue when flying the F-4 out
of Torrejon, post-Vietnam. I'd wait after take-off for the WSO to turn
on the RWR, usually in vain. I'd wait for the WSO to reach out with
the radar and search for traffic that had been called by departure,
usually in vain.

We carried the 101 or 119 the whole time I was at Torrejon, bolted in
the left forward missile well. Never allowed to turn it on in
peace-time---"you'll compromise the programs" or "you'll put RAPCON
off the air". Motivation to study without a threat or an opportunity
to practice will deteriorate.

You can believe that we knew exactly what the RWR was doing in the
Hunter/Killer mission. And, we didn't object too much to dragging the
ALQ-87 or 101 around, even though we never turned it on (it
interferred with the Weasel's stuff). The pod was a last ditch aid to
SAM evasion when face-to-face with a missile airborne.

Now, the guys know exactly what the value is and they have lots of
opportunity to practice.


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