Question: Cold War fighters: Internal Jammers

[Derk 265]

Derk asks about the maneuverablity of a C model versus an A model. According to sqdn mates that flew both...indeed the lighter A model was (seemed) more maneuverable. According to "Target Arms" (FWS graduates) the C's software and LEF (Leading Edge Flap) programming was different. Add that to a heavier jet. From my prospective, one or two sorties flying against a C, I felt like I had the advantage in a turning fight.

 

Thanks, just what I needed,

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

[GalmOne 1]

Aircraft always seem to get heavier as they are improved, but I think the advantage the C has in the vertical plus the better radar made it a more potent aircraft than the A. The same reasons why F-15 drivers like their Eagles so much.

GalmOne, you can download a free pdf copy of Sierra Hotel here: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476975.pdf

 

Enjoy ;)

 

Oh thanks! I know what to read now when the textbooks get boring.

[+Gepard 11,323]

Jammers are optimized for the radars they had to face. During Yom Kippur war the israeli planes had heavy losses when they carried the US jammers, which the US Forces used in Vietnam at the same time. For the SA-2 SAM systems this jammers were made, but were unable to jam the much more modern SA-3 or SA-6.

 

During 1972 (or was it early 1973?) the soviets tested a jammer system which was optimized against the Hawk near the Golan Heights. With this jammer in back the syrian MiGs were able to circle over israeli SAM sites and no one of the many fired Hawk missiles hit a plane.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Gepard

[busdriver 35]

Aircraft always seem to get heavier as they are improved, but I think the advantage the C has in the vertical plus the better radar made it a more potent aircraft than the A. The same reasons why F-15 drivers like their Eagles so much.

I can't recall the source, but somewhere out there on the "internets" is a discussion of the weight gain to improvement ratio. ISTR it worked out to something like 1000 pounds per year. For a knife fight, horizontal or vertical the A would still have the better (relative) nose authority. A number you could rely upon if you glanced at your airspeed...250 KIAS; that slow and you could still go over the top (loop or Immelmann). We had a target arm teaching BFM academics during RTU. He distilled our BFM problem thusly: Ask yourself, "Am I inside the bandit's turn circle?" If yes, go kill him. If no, drive to his circle and kill him. The C most definitely has a superior radar.

 

I never met an Eagle guy that didn't love his jet. Two motors, powerful radar, the ability to "reach out and touch some one" (obtuse reference to AT&T long distance commercial from the 80s), some really cool avionics features. Things like NCTR. Or let's say they're going to train/fight in a specific area (MOA for US folks, TRA for EU types). They can program the corner points of the area into their Nav computer, connect the dots so to speak on their radar screen, and have superior SA. And this was 30 years ago. The F-16A could only display one solitary Nav point on the REO (radar electro optical). Eagles liked to sweep or enter the MOA/TRA in their "Wall" formation above the contrail level, then at an appropriate distance BVR , descend/dive through the contrails. It made me smile every time I saw it. My first choice out of pilot training was the F-15, second was RF-4. The F-16 didn't interest me in the least. When I got to Germany and started seeing all kinds of airplanes, and having immensely enjoyable but totally unauthorized 1-v-1 or 1-v-2 or 1-v-4 dogfights while staying below Germany's PCA (Positive Control Airspace...radar controlled above 7000') I was most impressed with the F-16. Figuring there wouldn't be a whole lot of BVR fighting, I decided I wasn't interested in flying a HUGE airplane (bigger than my big RF-4).

Edited September 3, 2011 by busdriver

[busdriver 35]

Jammers are optimized for the radars they had to face. During Yom Kippur war the israeli planes had heavy losses when they carried the US jammers, which the US Forces used in Vietnam at the same time. For the SA-2 SAM systems this jammers were made, but were unable to jam the much more modern SA-3 or SA-6.

Quite true. And through trail and error (lots of error) they discovered maneuvers and chaff intervals that worked very effectively. (According to a couple notes I'm looking at from my attendance at ECP school).

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

 

 

bus::

Eagles liked to sweep or enter the MOA/TRA in their "Wall" formation above the contrail level, then at an appropriate distance BVR , descend/dive through the contrails. It made me smile every time I saw it.

 

 

:drinks: :drinks:

 

LOVE IT. I've always been trying to share the importance of contrails in the sky battlefield, even for dogfight planes. Nobody "sees" it, except you saw it. Thanks man!!!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

busdriver, thought maybe you'd like to see these....very old contrail screens from the SF~1....

 

[busdriver 35]

In early 1988 at Kunsan we were tasked to play bandits for the Eagles ORI. They deployed to Kwangju but had to fight their way into the ROK, land at Kwangju then relaunch a squadron's worth (or so) on sweeps and escorts of F-4s from Taegu. The other F-16 sqdn already had their Block 30 jets and they played Floggers (face shooters). We simulated Fishbeds. My sqdn CC lead 18 or 20 of us (think we had a couple ground aborts at EOR). The only guys on the UHF radios were Lead and his #2. Everybody else stayed silent on UHF, but we had seperate VHF freqs for each pair. We taxied silently to the runway in sequence. Tower cleared the formation for takeoff and the first four took the runway. As the first pair rolled, the following pair moved forward to allow the next pair on the runway. 20 seconds spacing, standard for a combat load with bombs. When we were all airborne Lead sent us over to GCI, only #2 answered. When Lead told GCI we were airborne, they asked how many in the flight. Lead answered...Two. GCI keyed his mike, "Ummmm, ermmmm...ahh Copy that." We would not have much in the way of GCI assistance.

 

We spread out as two-ships all over the ROK, entered our CAPs and waited...and waited...and waited. My Lead and I were on the west coast south of Osan. At a nominal 420 KGS it's only 10 minutes from our CAP to the southern coast. It was a gorgeous, cold, clear day. We got a call in the blind from GCI..."30 plus Eagles inbound...40 Eagles inbound." Oh great! One more quick pump around the CAP, noses hot toward the south. Shortly there after I started seeing the four-abreast contrails as they dove through the contrail level. Off to the east and southeast pairs of contrails appeared...now some circular ones just like the BoB. It truly was awesome...all across the sky. Heading south I was on the west side of the formation, my Lead decided to pump again. GCI is calling in the blind..."Kill F-16 right hand turn at FL350...Kill F-16 left hand turn at 9000...(you get the picture, "All F-16s in the ROK are dead, Eagle 01, out."). I told Lead I had picked up a pair of contacts...20 miles...high aspect and closing fast..."Two's crickets" (my ALR-69 was lit up and tweedling). Too late, he didn't see them on his REO since he had started a left turn...oh f*ck...this was not going to end well for us. It didn't. Another in-place turn back south and Lead gets a contact to the SE and points that way...but my contacts were SW...hmmm oh there they are..."Two's engaged defensive Eagles...[s**t Lead]...Break right...he's closing to guns...Fox two...Fox two...(his wingman must have called his break cuz he puked out flares and broke down and away)" My Lead died, I died. It was painless, but extremely instructional. It was over extremely fast for us. One Lt brought back video tape of a gun tracking solution up above FL400, but he had already died I'd guess. We headed for the Tanker, topped off, went to a new CAP, loitered, used a piddle pack, had a sandwich and some water, then waited for the next round.

 

Second round GCI braodcast, "Phantoms airborne, Eagles airborne." Lead picked up what turned out to be a pair of low altitude F-4s with F-15 trailers. He opted to roll in on the lead pair of the 2 + 2. Lead miscalculated the turn and got in a tail chase (they were doing .95mach or so) I was sampling the trailers up to the turn...and the Eagles killed us both. The gouge back then said if there is more than 8 NMs between target elements, go for the lead pair. Less than 8 NMs go for the trailers. We didn't match their speed coming around the corner, so the trailers quickly closed and killed us. We played pretty good NKAF bandits (poorly trained).

 

Another Lt got into a tail chase with a high speed F-4, he was reviewing his tape with a dozen of us (Sqdn brass not in the room). I started hooting, "s**t yer gonna go supersonic at 500 feet over a populated area..." guys started laughing. The Lt stopped his tape, left the room for a bit. When he returned about 15-20 minutes later the CC asked for his tape (must have been tip off). Miraculously the tape became corrupt at .97 mach for a short period. When the picture cleared up he was slowing and climbing, pulling off from the F-4. We laughed. No sonic boom complaints were filed as far as we knew.

[GalmOne 1]

That sounds like one epic fight (yet disappointing for the Vipers)! Sounds like a classic boom and zoom WWII dogfight going on there. Of all the truly awesome experiences you've told us, busdriver, I think the most I've learned are the plethora of acronyms you use! I must have looked up at least 24 since this thread started.

[busdriver 35]

I think the most I've learned are the plethora of acronyms you use! I must have looked up at least 24 since this thread started.

My apologies, honestly. I'll work on that. Did you noticed that I never use WVR? There's a reason for that. From my experience an engagement is either BVR or some form of either 1) at the merge or 2) a visual fight. I know...dubya-vee-ahr looks & sounds like the natural opposite to BVR to you. It looks and sounds extremely "not fighter pilot" to me. Whenever I see WVR I just think visual.

[MigBuster 2,884]

In early 1988 at Kunsan we were tasked to play bandits for the.............

 

 

Fantastic story thanks - shame about the outcome

 

You're supposed to put this stuff in a book called F-16 in the cold war so I can buy it

Edited September 4, 2011 by MigBuster

[GalmOne 1]

My apologies, honestly. I'll work on that. Did you noticed that I never use WVR? There's a reason for that. From my experience an engagement is either BVR or some form of either 1) at the merge or 2) a visual fight. I know...dubya-vee-ahr looks & sounds like the natural opposite to BVR to you. It looks and sounds extremely "not fighter pilot" to me. Whenever I see WVR I just think visual.

 

 

Why apologize? It's a great learning experience, which gave me the initiative to go look up many different things. These stories are awesome and adding your acronyms gives each one a unique taste.

 

 

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

That is interesting. I've written "WVR" before, but "inside visual range" seems more...real...in some way, I suppose because I never see WVR written. Like alot of computer gamers, I made up "WVR" for myself, logically following on BVR. One thing the girls teach you, life is illogical.

[Derk 265]

The Belgian F16's have Carapace, an internal ECM system mounted in the tailbase (where others put the dragchute)

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

 

Funny, answering your own post.... Anyway, another - earlier- Cold War ECM case: from 07-1975 until 06-1980, 68 of our KLu F 104-G's were equiped with internal Sanders AN-ALQ 26 'multi band track breakers" (jammers). No flares or chaff dispensers.The set seems to have been quite effective: though not supposed to be used during excercises in order not to give away anything to spying Russians, one pilot "accidently" activated the stuff and in his own words "hell broke loose" with the unsuspecting radar and air defence units.....

The German Navy (and I guess the Luftwaffe too) used underwing ECM pods (AN/ALQ 167) with AN/ALE-40N chaff/flare dispensers and the Canadians at least used radar warning gear.

 

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

Edited September 6, 2011 by Derk