F-8 versus F-4

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Here's another Hunter Reunion thing.

Met several pilots at the reunion that transferred out of VF-201 quickly
when it transitioned from the F-8 to the F-4.

None of them had ANY interest in going from a fighter to an interceptor.
Was this common during that period? AND was it a mission thing or a
single-seat versus two-seat thing?

--Woody

[John Carrier]

It was like trading your sports car for a pickup truck, albeit a very
powerful and fast one.

As to the hun, except that it was a 1.3 jet vice 1.8, didn't have the legs
w/o tanks, didn't have nearly the overall maneuverability of the F-8
(although its instantaneous turn was close) ... yeh, I guess they were
close.

Certainly there was a single seat mentality ... "Never met a RIO yet worth
300# of gas!" OTOH, there were RIOs worth their weight in gold.

R / John

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> Here's another Hunter Reunion thing.
>
> Met several pilots at the reunion that transferred out of VF-201 quickly
> when it transitioned from the F-8 to the F-4.
>
> None of them had ANY interest in going from a fighter to an interceptor.
> Was this common during that period? AND was it a mission thing or a
> single-seat versus two-seat thing?
>
> --Woody
>

[Bob]

F-8 vs F-4? I assume you refer to dogfight/sidewinder comparison. The
F-8 with an F-8 pilot driving would usually beat an F-4 with an F-4
pilot driving prior to 1968. An F-4 with an F-8 pilot driving would
usually beat an F-8 (which was only flown by F-8 pilots). After 1968,
the F-4 with either F-8 or F-4 pilot driving would usually beat an F-8.
As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

[John Carrier]

"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> F-8 vs F-4? I assume you refer to dogfight/sidewinder comparison. The
> F-8 with an F-8 pilot driving would usually beat an F-4 with an F-4
> pilot driving prior to 1968. An F-4 with an F-8 pilot driving would
> usually beat an F-8 (which was only flown by F-8 pilots). After 1968,
> the F-4 with either F-8 or F-4 pilot driving would usually beat an F-8.

Not in my experience. Certainly the Phantom community learned considerably
from the Top Gun effort (originally just a bunch of VF-121 instructors
flying VF-126 A-4's). But it remained a difficult aircraft to exploit and
up to CAG-19's departure on the last Fighter Eight cruise in 1975, the ole
gator usually prevailed.

There were guys who mastered the Hawg and were the exceptions to this rule.
After I transitioned to the F-4 and started fighting it, I originally
observed "No wonder we beat up on this pig." After a few hundred hours that
became, "How did we EVER beat up on this beast?" Two J-79's could transform
their shipping containers into a formidable machine, but given the Phantom's
flying qualities it wasn't easy to extract its performance.

> As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
> landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
> that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
> beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
> heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
> single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

A clean F-8 was a joyful machine to fly, but its radar and WCS were
obviously inferior to the Phantom. It was, ah, unforgiving around the blunt
end of the boat while the Phantom was utterly stable and predictable
(although ramp strikes were not unheard of).

R / John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/11/05 7:18 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> "Bob" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> F-8 vs F-4? I assume you refer to dogfight/sidewinder comparison. The
>> F-8 with an F-8 pilot driving would usually beat an F-4 with an F-4
>> pilot driving prior to 1968. An F-4 with an F-8 pilot driving would
>> usually beat an F-8 (which was only flown by F-8 pilots). After 1968,
>> the F-4 with either F-8 or F-4 pilot driving would usually beat an F-8.
>
> Not in my experience. Certainly the Phantom community learned considerably
> from the Top Gun effort (originally just a bunch of VF-121 instructors
> flying VF-126 A-4's). But it remained a difficult aircraft to exploit and
> up to CAG-19's departure on the last Fighter Eight cruise in 1975, the ole
> gator usually prevailed.
>
> There were guys who mastered the Hawg and were the exceptions to this rule.
> After I transitioned to the F-4 and started fighting it, I originally
> observed "No wonder we beat up on this pig." After a few hundred hours that
> became, "How did we EVER beat up on this beast?" Two J-79's could transform
> their shipping containers into a formidable machine, but given the Phantom's
> flying qualities it wasn't easy to extract its performance.
>
>> As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
>> landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
>> that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
>> beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
>> heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
>> single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.
>
> A clean F-8 was a joyful machine to fly, but its radar and WCS were
> obviously inferior to the Phantom. It was, ah, unforgiving around the blunt
> end of the boat while the Phantom was utterly stable and predictable
> (although ramp strikes were not unheard of).
>
> R / John
>
>

Good stuff, John.

Hey, drifting the topic... Would you mind e-mailing me a copy of the BRAC
article that USNI Proceedings published. I'm too cheap to subscribe, but
I'd like to read it.

--Woody

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>>> As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
>>> landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
>>> that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
>>> beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
>>> heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
>>> single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[John Carrier]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
>>>> landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
>>>> that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
>>>> beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
>>>> heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
>>>> single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.
>
> While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
> regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
> and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
> Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
> outperform the Crusader.

Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
for air-to-ground!"

R / John

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:27:59 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
>>>>> landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
>>>>> that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
>>>>> beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
>>>>> heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
>>>>> single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.
>>
>> While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
>> regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
>> and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
>> Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
>> outperform the Crusader.
>
>Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
>urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
>for air-to-ground!"

But, air-to-air is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
from the target.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Mike Kanze]

Guy,

>The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and the
>USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis for
>flak suppression.

Nice to know you could do it, if your primary mud-moving assets were
unavailable.

However, IMHO, again an example of "the fact that you can do it, does not
necessarily make it a good idea." Like trying to tank from an A-7, flying
under the Golden Gate Bridge, or extreme pursuit of all the earthly delights
in Olongopo.

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt


"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
> John Carrier wrote:
>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>> > While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
>> > regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
>> > and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
>> > Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
>> > outperform the Crusader.
>>
>> Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
>> urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
>> for air-to-ground!"
>
> The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and
> the
> USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis
> for
> flak suppression. Per the F-8C/E/H/J/K stores loading chart, an F-8 could
> carry 8 Mk.81/82/Rockeyes (total) on MERs, or four Mk.83s, M117s, Mk.77
> fire
> bombs or CBU-24/29/49 on TERs, or a pair of Mk.84s on the pylons, plus
> Zunis
> on the Cheek stations. I've seen photos of most of this ordnance being
> carried in Vietnam. The F-100 had more pylons, but the F-8 had more
> clearance (allowing it to carry TER/MERs) and more internal fuel, while
> the
> Hun (in Vietnam) always used two of its pylons for fuel. The Hun did have
> more reliable guns, and a higher g limit (7.33 vs. 6.5).
>
> Guy
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/11/05 3:27 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
>>>>> landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
>>>>> that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
>>>>> beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
>>>>> heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
>>>>> single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.
>>
>> While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
>> regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
>> and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
>> Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
>> outperform the Crusader.
>
> Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
> urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
> for air-to-ground!"
>
> R / John

An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs on
Tomcats...

--Woody

[John Carrier]

>> Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
>> urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
>> for air-to-ground!"
>>
>> R / John
>
> An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs
> on
> Tomcats...

Yes. F-14 community stupidity was the third component of the trinity that
killed what could have been the premier strike fighter of the age.

R / John

[Guy Alcala]

Mike Kanze wrote:

> Guy,
>
> >The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and the
> >USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis for
> >flak suppression.
>
> Nice to know you could do it, if your primary mud-moving assets were
> unavailable.
>
> However, IMHO, again an example of "the fact that you can do it, does not
> necessarily make it a good idea." Like trying to tank from an A-7, flying
> under the Golden Gate Bridge, or extreme pursuit of all the earthly delights
> in Olongopo.

In the case of the Marines, every fighter and attack a/c is considered a primary
mud-moving a/c. BTW, what's the big deal with tanking from an A-7? I've been
told (by a former A-7 pilot acquaintance of mine) that it was tougher than from
the C/L drogue of an A-4 or KA-3/KA-6 owing to having the tail in the wing wake
(ISTR he mentioned needing to cross-control), but is still probably easier/safer
than from a KC-135 with the add-on drogue.

Guy

[John Carrier]

SNIP
>BTW, what's the big deal with tanking from an A-7? I've been
> told (by a former A-7 pilot acquaintance of mine) that it was tougher than
> from
> the C/L drogue of an A-4 or KA-3/KA-6 owing to having the tail in the wing
> wake
> (ISTR he mentioned needing to cross-control), but is still probably
> easier/safer
> than from a KC-135 with the add-on drogue.
>
> Guy
>

Actually, it wasn't a particularly big deal except that the A-7 buddy store
was on the left wing. Great for just about every jet except for the F-8
(probe on the left), which put you in the dirtiest air the tanker could
generate. I've tanked the A-7 in the F-8, F-4 and F-14. Not as nice as the
KA-6, maybe no better than the KC-135 and its 9 foot non-retractable hose,
but then again, maybe no worse.

Gas is gas. You fly an afterburning aircraft on extended legs/cycles, you
tank.

R / John

[Mike Kanze]

Guy,

John put it fairly well in his post. Some aircraft types (not just the F-8)
found themselves in the A-7's exhaust a mite more often than comfortable.
Not a show-stopper, but when you factor in the other variables that can crop
up (night, low state, etc.), having to deal with this just made the
experience less pleasant.

More to my earlier point: While it was good to know that the Air Wing could
tank from the A-7 if other assets weren't available, it was not the best use
of that platform. Same-o for putting forward firing ordnance on the A-6. You
could do it if needed, but rockets were better employed by the SLUFs.

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt



"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike Kanze wrote:
>
>> Guy,
>>
>> >The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and
>> >the
>> >USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis
>> >for
>> >flak suppression.
>>
>> Nice to know you could do it, if your primary mud-moving assets were
>> unavailable.
>>
>> However, IMHO, again an example of "the fact that you can do it, does not
>> necessarily make it a good idea." Like trying to tank from an A-7, flying
>> under the Golden Gate Bridge, or extreme pursuit of all the earthly
>> delights
>> in Olongopo.
>
> In the case of the Marines, every fighter and attack a/c is considered a
> primary
> mud-moving a/c. BTW, what's the big deal with tanking from an A-7? I've
> been
> told (by a former A-7 pilot acquaintance of mine) that it was tougher than
> from
> the C/L drogue of an A-4 or KA-3/KA-6 owing to having the tail in the wing
> wake
> (ISTR he mentioned needing to cross-control), but is still probably
> easier/safer
> than from a KC-135 with the add-on drogue.
>
> Guy
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/12/05 7:52 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" > wrote:

> Guy,
>
> John put it fairly well in his post. Some aircraft types (not just the F-8)
> found themselves in the A-7's exhaust a mite more often than comfortable.
> Not a show-stopper, but when you factor in the other variables that can crop
> up (night, low state, etc.), having to deal with this just made the
> experience less pleasant.
>
> More to my earlier point: While it was good to know that the Air Wing could
> tank from the A-7 if other assets weren't available, it was not the best use
> of that platform. Same-o for putting forward firing ordnance on the A-6. You
> could do it if needed, but rockets were better employed by the SLUFs.

Not to pile on, but A-6E plugging into an A-7 was really no big deal. I
think the worst platform I ever tanked from though was the British Victor.
The baskets were so high up that you were constantly in his wingtip
vortices. It took a bit of rudder and coordinated aileron trim to stay in
one spot and keep from sliding to the center of the aircraft (where the jet
tanking on the OTHER side was also trying to slide). Still, it wasn't
unmanageable, just made the event more interesting.

The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April of
2003.

--Woody

[Mike Kanze]

Woody,

>The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April of
>2003.

Care to elaborate?

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/12/05 7:52 PM, in article , "Mike
> Kanze" > wrote:
>
>> Guy,
>>
>> John put it fairly well in his post. Some aircraft types (not just the
>> F-8)
>> found themselves in the A-7's exhaust a mite more often than comfortable.
>> Not a show-stopper, but when you factor in the other variables that can
>> crop
>> up (night, low state, etc.), having to deal with this just made the
>> experience less pleasant.
>>
>> More to my earlier point: While it was good to know that the Air Wing
>> could
>> tank from the A-7 if other assets weren't available, it was not the best
>> use
>> of that platform. Same-o for putting forward firing ordnance on the A-6.
>> You
>> could do it if needed, but rockets were better employed by the SLUFs.
>
> Not to pile on, but A-6E plugging into an A-7 was really no big deal. I
> think the worst platform I ever tanked from though was the British Victor.
> The baskets were so high up that you were constantly in his wingtip
> vortices. It took a bit of rudder and coordinated aileron trim to stay in
> one spot and keep from sliding to the center of the aircraft (where the
> jet
> tanking on the OTHER side was also trying to slide). Still, it wasn't
> unmanageable, just made the event more interesting.
>
> The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April
> of
> 2003.
>
> --Woody
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/13/05 2:01 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" > wrote:

> Woody,
>
>> The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April of
>> 2003.
>
> Care to elaborate?

Owl,

Turbulence like you read about in the North. Most of the refueling was IMC.
In fact, I had one rendezvous (night, NVG's, wingman) where we didn't
visually break out the fully lit tanker until .3 miles in the HUD (STT radar
lock, distance reported by lead because *I* was certainly flying welded
wing--looked reasonable though). NASTY! Several nights the weather was
from nearly the surface all the way above 350 to 400.

Getting into the iron maiden on the KC-135 is challenging in turbulence
(actually, staying in is the rough part), but with WORPS or WOPR stores on
the 10 or the 135 in turbulence with all that excessive amount of hose
bouncing the basket all over, it was downright hard as hell! One night, we
had a Prowler rip a store off the tanker and a Tomcat rip the probe off the
aircraft and divert. Toughest tanking I've ever seen!

Speaking of which, I'll never figure out how the Prowlers found the tankers
on those IMC nights, but they always managed to just by using their
yardstick. Those guys did some very impressive work.

Frankly, we hung it out a bit in conditions that we normally wouldn't have
accepted to get ordnance to the folks on the ground.

--Woody

[José Herculano]

> While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
> regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
> and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
> Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
> outperform the Crusader.

Not on real iron, Ed. The Navy had little use for them, but the Marines did
use the two underwing pilons on F-8E/J to carry a good variety of iron. Two
2,000lb Mk84s were not unusual, coupled with Sidewinders or Zunis on the
fuselage rails. That, in my book, is real iron.
_____________
José Herculano

[Bob]

Hi John,
You sound very much like a guy you'd have to beat back to the ready
room to beat. Different opinions are what kept the beer flowing in the
WOXOF room. Every cockpit had a different view.

Must point out to the bluesuiters singing the F-100 AG praises, that,
we carried lots of ordnance into North Vietnam on the F-8, probably
half the hops, generally as flak suppressors. I could be wrong, but I
don't the the F-100 ventured far north of the DMZ carrying iron.
Perhaps their scheduling seniors were just smarter than ours. We
considered hops south of the DMZ as R&R.

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Bob" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Must point out to the bluesuiters singing the F-100 AG praises, that,
> we carried lots of ordnance into North Vietnam on the F-8, probably
> half the hops, generally as flak suppressors. I could be wrong, but I
> don't the the F-100 ventured far north of the DMZ carrying iron.
> Perhaps their scheduling seniors were just smarter than ours. We
> considered hops south of the DMZ as R&R.
>
That's nice. To the troops on the ground looking for the CAS, it wasn't such
a playground.

Glenn D.

[Bob]

Not disparaging ground troops anywhere, just pointing out the hazards
to our aircraft were higher over North Vietnam than over the south.

[Mike Kanze]

Woody,

Thanks. Sounds every bit as challenging as anything I saw in my day - if not
more so.

***

BTW, two nice pix of your outfit's (VFA-201) fly-bys during your CompTUEx at
MCAS Kaneohe last November. See the current HOOK (Spring 2005. Pix and
accompanying article on pp. 58-59).

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/13/05 2:01 PM, in article , "Mike
> Kanze" > wrote:
>
>> Woody,
>>
>>> The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April
>>> of
>>> 2003.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
> Owl,
>
> Turbulence like you read about in the North. Most of the refueling was
> IMC.
> In fact, I had one rendezvous (night, NVG's, wingman) where we didn't
> visually break out the fully lit tanker until .3 miles in the HUD (STT
> radar
> lock, distance reported by lead because *I* was certainly flying welded
> wing--looked reasonable though). NASTY! Several nights the weather was
> from nearly the surface all the way above 350 to 400.
>
> Getting into the iron maiden on the KC-135 is challenging in turbulence
> (actually, staying in is the rough part), but with WORPS or WOPR stores on
> the 10 or the 135 in turbulence with all that excessive amount of hose
> bouncing the basket all over, it was downright hard as hell! One night,
> we
> had a Prowler rip a store off the tanker and a Tomcat rip the probe off
> the
> aircraft and divert. Toughest tanking I've ever seen!
>
> Speaking of which, I'll never figure out how the Prowlers found the
> tankers
> on those IMC nights, but they always managed to just by using their
> yardstick. Those guys did some very impressive work.
>
> Frankly, we hung it out a bit in conditions that we normally wouldn't have
> accepted to get ordnance to the folks on the ground.
>
> --Woody
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/16/05 4:32 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" > wrote:

> Woody,
>
> Thanks. Sounds every bit as challenging as anything I saw in my day - if not
> more so.
>
> ***
>
> BTW, two nice pix of your outfit's (VFA-201) fly-bys during your CompTUEx at
> MCAS Kaneohe last November. See the current HOOK (Spring 2005. Pix and
> accompanying article on pp. 58-59).

That was definitely a good deal USNR detachment, and we were happy to
provide Cat IV OPFOR for CCDG 2 and do the cemetery fly-by for the Governor.
I still haven't read the article yet, but I've had lots of folks mention it
to me in passing.

--Woody

[IRBusch]

I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
on aircraft of this era.

Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
(only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.

I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what
radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry? I've heard it was a Hughes set,
but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since
the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it ever
carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note, what
did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was mostly a
ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at short range?
And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated from its
Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable missile (other
than Genie!).

Thx

Ian

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:18:07 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>On 5/11/05 3:27 PM, in article , "John
>Carrier" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> As an interceptor, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Carrier
>>>>>> landing suitability, the F-4 was vastly superior to the F-8. Make
>>>>>> that, overwhelmingly superior. I personally never observed an F-100
>>>>>> beat an F-8 at anything. I'm sure it happened sometime but I never
>>>>>> heard of it in my short 22 years of flying. It was single seat and
>>>>>> single engine but kind of a lead sled. Admittedly parochial.
>>>
>>> While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
>>> regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
>>> and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
>>> Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
>>> outperform the Crusader.
>>
>> Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
>> urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
>> for air-to-ground!"
>>
>> R / John
>
>An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs on
>Tomcats...
>
>--Woody

[John Carrier]

"IRBusch" > wrote in message
...
>I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
> on aircraft of this era.
>
> Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
> illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
> (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
> or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
> the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
> the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
> Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.

Nope. There was a capability to carry and launch the AIM-9C (radar
sidewinder), but I don't think the missile ever made it to operational
status. There was never a provision to carry Sparrow on the operational
F-8. The F-8U3 Crusader III (three prototypes built) was Sparrow capable.
The Crusader III lost a fly-off to the lower performance F-4 Phantom in
1958. No examples survive.

SNIP

R / John

[Guy Alcala]

John Carrier wrote:

> "IRBusch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
> > on aircraft of this era.
> >
> > Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
> > illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
> > (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
> > or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
> > the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
> > the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
> > Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.
>
> Nope. There was a capability to carry and launch the AIM-9C (radar
> sidewinder), but I don't think the missile ever made it to operational
> status.

Apparently it was carried for a time in Vietnam, typically one -9C and
three-9Ds. AFAIK, no shots were taken. Later, the marines were talking about
modifying them into AGM-122 Sidearm ARMs for the Harrier, but I don't remember
if that ever went operational.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

IRBusch wrote:

> I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
> on aircraft of this era.
>
> Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
> illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
> (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super Crusader
> or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
> the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
> the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
> Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.

BTW, the Matra 530 had interchangeable heads, IR and SARH.

> I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what
> radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry?

The whole fire-control system was designated the MG-13. I don't know if the radar
had a separate AN/APG- or APQ- designation, but I've never seen one attributed to
it. Hughes own primer, "Introduction to Airborne Radar", just refers to the
MG-13.

> I've heard it was a Hughes set,
> but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since
> the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it ever
> carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note, what
> did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was mostly a
> ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at short range?

Okay, since you asked. From R.F. Dorr's book on the 101, describing a typical
F-101B intercept:

"At midnight, a blip appears on the SAGE surveillance radar screen. It is
declared an unknown. The SAGE computer, using target position input information
from various radars throughout the air defense early warning system, quickly
computes the logical scramble force as being the 60th FIS at Otis AFB on Cape Cod
since the 60th can make a minimum-time intercept. The computer automatically
sounds the scramble horn at the 60th alert hangar. . . [crews run to a/c, don
poopy suits, get in].

"As the pilot of each a/c starts engines, the RO [Radar Operator] calls the tower
for scramble instructions.

"'Uh, Roger, RED 1. Callsigns X-RAY KILO zero-one and zero-two. Buster angels
three-zero. Heading zero-nine-zero after Otis scramble corridor. Contact Otis
departure control on three-zero-two-point-seven when airborne. Cleared to taxi.'

"While taxiing, the RO calls off the taxi checklist tothe pilot and sets his
datalink set to his callsign suffix number.This establishes a link between the
SAGE computer and the a/c. 'Otis tower, X-RAY KILO zero-one flight number one
for the active.'

"'Roger, zero-one, you are cleared for immediate takeoff. Contact departure when
airborne.'

[both a/c take off]

"'Zero-two, let's go to departure frequency'. 02 acknowledges and both ROs tune
in the [dep. freq, contact departure control and get further instructions].

"'Roger, Otis. As the climb continues at military power ('buster'),the RO is
finishing the climb checklist call-out to the pilot and adjusting the MG-13
fire-control radar for best performance and display [. . . They change
frequencies from dep. control to the GCI station, Grayfish].

"'Roger, zero-one flight', the ground controller responds. 'We need altitude,
heading, a/c type, speed and tail numbers on this guy. Follow dolly'. Zero-one
flight knows from the last instruction to follow the commands and information
provided on the datalink cockpit displays and to observe radio silence until the
identification is complete.

"The command attitude indicatiors in both Voodoos indicate 35,000 ft. and the
command mach meter 0.9 Mach. The datalink steering dot on the pilot's radar
display and the target marker circle on the RO's scope indicate dead-ahead. The
climb is continued to 35,000ft. and both a/c level off and set their speeds at
the command Mach number. The RO's target marker circle indicates that the target
is dead-ahead at 45 miles. O2 breaks away from 01 when the target marker
indicates 30 miles and the pilot's steering dot shows a sudden deflection. (In
the ADC tactics scenario, one of the RED a/c makes the pass while the other
stands off for a firing pass if needed. In this case, the SAGE computer is
transmitting information to 02 that will result in his being positioned at the
standoff location. The pilot-RO cockpit exchange continues as 01 presses in for
the [ID]pass . . .

"'Target dead-ahead at 25miles. Confirm viz-ident mode selected.' The pilot
checks his armament control panel and confirms that the mode selector switch is
positioned for an [ID] pass. Suddenly, the target marker circle deflects to the
left and centers at a range of 20miles. The RO continues to search the area of
the target marker circle for his assigned target.

"'Contact forty-five degrees port at 20 miles. Port. Disregard dolly.' The SAGE
computer has fulfilled its function of getting the interceptor grossly positioned
in the target area. The intercept control is now in the hands of the RO and he
instructs the pilot to disregard the datalink indications. The RO quickly
analyses the target blip drift characteristics on his screen and determines that
the gross geometry is one of reciprocal headings with lateral displacement; his
first action is to instruct the pilot to turn left using twenty degreesof bank
('port' command). He continues to watch the drift characteristicsof the blip
while reporting range and azimuth to the pilot. The pilot continuously scans for
a visual sightingof the target. Luckily, tonight is a clear night. However,
with weather present or the target 'blacked out' (nav. lights turned off), the
pilot must depend on the RO to keep him informed of target position and to
accurately and safely bring the a/c into final visual [ID] position.

"In the port turn, the RO notices that the blip is sliding out in azimuth on his
scope, so he instructs the pilot to increase his rate-of-turn to maximum. 'Port
hard as possible.' The RO notices that the drift has stopped and he watches his
scope for the first indicating that the blip is starting to drift towards the
center of his scope. Here,safety is of paramount importance because should the
target hold at one azimuth on the RO's B-scan type display, a collision is
certain if something in the geometry is not changed.

"'Target 45 degrees port at15 miles, overtake 780 knots.' At 14 miles, the blip
starts to move rapidly across the scope toward zero azimuth. 'Ease off. Hold.'
The RO has the drift he is looking for and he now begins to 'fine-tune' the
geometry so that the target is placed on the nose at 10 miles with ninety degrees
of heading difference, commonly called the 'ninety-ten' tactic in ADC. The pilot
increases or decreases his bank angle and holds as the RO instructs. 'Target
dead-ahead at 10 miles.'

"The RO begins to look for the blip to start drifting to port as the target
passes the nose. He sees the drift starting to develop and instructs the pilot
'Port'. The pilot establishes 20 degrees of bank. This turn rate stops the drift
and the target is staying dead-ahead in azimuth. The Voodoo is in a turn that
will eventually result in a roll-out dead-astern of the target at about 5 miles.
The range-rate meter starts to show a fall-off in overtake. The RO continues to
fine-tune the geometry through instructions to the pilot to ensure that an
excessively long roll-out range does not occur that will result in more time for
the intercept; likewise, he must assure that a dangerous situation is not set up
by rolling out too close to the target. 'Target dead-ahead at 5 miles. Overtake
50knots.' An optimum roll-out has resulted.

"'Re-chec viz-ident and armament safety switch off and safety-wired.' 'Roger,'
the pilot confirms.

"'Fly the dot,' instructs the RO. He has locked his radar onto the target and
released the intercept control back to the pilot. He continues to give the pilot
geometry and overtake information as the range is closed towards the final
intercept point. The pilot flies the MG-13 FCS computer-generated steering dot;
it will take the a/c to a position that is two hundred feet right of thetargetand
twohundredyardsslantrange, at which point hewillgeta pull-out signal that
indicates that the final position has been reached. From that point, the pilot
controls the intercept to a position that is optimum for ID purposes.

"'Target 3 degrees port, 700 yards. Overtake is holding at 50 kts.'

"'Roger. Tally-ho,' the pilot replies as he confirms a visual on the target.

"'Target 5 degrees port, 200 yds. Overtake 10 kts.'

"'Roger. I have a pull-out signal.' Stand-by for ID light.'

"'Roger. Ready with ID light. Overtake slightly positive. Good position.' The
pilot adjusts the throttles so that he is at the same speed as the target.

"'ID light on.' The RO switches on the 8-inch sealed beam light on the fuselage
near his cockpit. A commercial airliner is readily identified as window shades
begin to open and passengers gawk out at the Voodoo stalking them in the night [.
.. .]

"As the pilot flies formation with the target, the RO calls in the required
information to Ground Control Intercept control. 'Grayfish, X-RAY KILO zero-one.'

"'Roger, zero-one. Ready to copy.'[the RO gives the info]

"'Roger,zero-one. Clear target and follow dolly. Zero-two will be joining up in
approximately five minutes.'

"The SAGE computer transmits datalink information that will result in their
rejoining and returning to base. They are handed off to Otis approach control and
brought in for a GCA and landing. . ."

Note that this was a radar intercept, the IRSTS wasn't used.
[i]
> And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated from its
> Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable missile (other
> than Genie!).

No.

Guy

[[email protected]]

AFIK the 101-wonder's MG13 was essentially the same as the 102's MG10
with the addition of guidance comps to launch the AIR2 Genie unguided
nuke. Never heard of one carrying radar Falcons - Pk of which was such
that the minimum number to be launched was 3, although I did kill a
Firebee drone with a singleton. BTW our 104As couldn't handle an F8 -
until we got the Dash 19 engine and then it was a different story. With
that added thrust we could take an F4 or a 106 by working the vertical.
As for the F4, I had flown the T6 (SNJ to y'all) in training so the
F4's quirks were like old home week in recalibrating my yaw-sensing
butt, to where I was using a tad of adverse aileron to increase the
roll rate in high AOA, plus asymmetrical thrust in zero-AOA vertical
reverses. Now, if that bird had just had a canopy like the Sabre or T33
.. . . but I guess you weren't supposed to look out when flying
interceptors. Engineers must listen to pilots!
Walt BJ

[Peter Stickney]

IRBusch wrote:

> I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more
> info on aircraft of this era.
>
> Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
> illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
> (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super
> Crusader or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I
> didn't know if
> the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
> the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
> Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever
> carried.

No Sparrows - they required a CW illuminator to guide, and the F-8s
never had one. The R.530 was a different beast (A very different
beast - perhaps the most ineffective AAM ever made, and that includes
the AIM-4 and the Soviet AA-1) It used some manner of monopulse
techniques to catch returns from the pulse radar of its launcher.
It was a rather contrary critter - I woldn't be surprised of one came
off its rail and fell up.

> I recognize this is off topic for a naval group, but similarly what
> radar did the F-101B Voodoo carry? I've heard it was a Hughes set,
> but it seems as though it must have been a low capability one, since
> the only Falcons I can find reference to it using are IR. Did it
> ever
> carry one that could actually illuminate a target? On that note,
> what did the backseater on an F-101B actually _do_ if radar was
> mostly a ground guided effort, and engagements were with Falcon at
> short range? And for that matter, did the F-101 ever get liberated
> from its Falcon's and given the ability to carry a more capable
> missile (other than Genie!).

The radar for the MG-13 (And for all the Air Force Rocket/Missile
interceptors) was the APG-37. 250 KW peak power, Palmer Scan in
search, Conical Scan to track. It should be able to pick up a
typical target out to 30 NM or so, and map out to 200, more or less.
What was different between versions were the control setups (Single
seat vs. Sedan) the Weapons Computers (FFAR, Falcon, or Genie), and
the data link integration. Most flavors also had CSTI (Control
Surface Tie In) which would send signals to the autopilot to
automatically follow the steering dot.
Oh - and th elater versions in the Century Series airplanes got IRST
systems, as well.
It was complicated, pushing the State of the Art a lot.

For raw power and utility as an Interceptor radar, it didn't get
surpassed until the F-4s came out.

The back seater had all sorts of stuff to do - selecting radar modes,
interpreting the scope, locking on the radar to the target (And
making sure it stayed locked on), evaluating possible ECM and
applying what ECCM stuff he could, weapons selection, and, often,
evaluating and propping up a degraded system as various tubes gave up
the ghost.
The single-seat pilots (F-86D/L, F-102, F4D) did all that too, and
flew the airplane in their copious free time.


--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[Thomas Schoene]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> IRBusch wrote:
>
>> I was happy to read this since I've been trying to get some more info
>> on aircraft of this era.
>>
>> Particularly for the F-8E: did its APS-94/104 have the ability to
>> illuminate for guiding Sparrow? I was under the impression that the
>> (only 2 built) next generation Crusader (Crusader II or Super
>> Crusader
>> or whatever it was called) had this capability, but I didn't know if
>> the garden variety did. I had read somewhere that the F-8E(FN) for
>> the French could lauch/guide the Matra 530 (which I thought, like
>> Sparrow, was SARH), but I can't find out if Sparrow was ever carried.
>
> BTW, the Matra 530 had interchangeable heads, IR and SARH.

Yes. The French F-8s were specfically modified to support the Matra 530
SARH version, which must have meant adding a continuous wave oscillator for
illumination. However, this would not have had the same CW parameters as
required for Sparrow. I know USN F-8s never supported AIM-7 at all and I
very much doubt that the French ones could have either.

Apparently the typical load of Matra 530s was one each IR and SARH. The
improved Super 530 was never adapted to the Crusader, which switched to
Sidewinder and Matra 550 Magic in the 1980s. Given how bad the standard 530
was, Magic was an improvement. (the 5390 was supposedly was so bad that
Israeli Mirage III pilots preferred guns, even without the sort of ROE
issues that plagued Sparrow in Vietnam.

[snip cool info on the F-101 and SAGE intercepts. Thanks!]
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Thomas Schoene]

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> Yes. The French F-8s were specfically modified to support the Matra
> 530 SARH version, which must have meant adding a continuous wave
> oscillator for illumination.

As Peter pointed out, this is wrong. Sorry for the disinformation.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Rob van Riel]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:44:43 +0000, Guy Alcala wrote:
> three-9Ds. AFAIK, no shots were taken. Later, the marines were talking about
> modifying them into AGM-122 Sidearm ARMs for the Harrier, but I don't remember
> if that ever went operational.

I don't think they were used on Harriers, but I believe Cobra's and maybe
Bronco's used them.

Rob

[IRBusch]

Thanks all for the feedback, and especially that very cool passage on
a F-101B intercept.

Regarding the French F-8E(FN)s, I was under the impression that they
could support the SARH 530, if only because their radar had a
different designation (APQ-104, vice APQ-94) than any of the US
Crusaders. I've got a 91/92 USNI Guide that says that the radars were
basically the same but modified to support "the French R.550 missile."
I'd always known of the 550 as being the Magic, which I thought to be
only an IR weapon, so I was thinking it might be a typo instead
referring to the R530 (and not expecting any need to modify the radar
for an IR weapon, just other components of avionics). Later in the
same paragraph it says "Presumably the modification represented by
APQ-104 was a CW injection mode." Again, this led me to believe some
manner of SARH weapons support (presumably the 530, not the 550), and
hence the question on Sparrow III. It sounds as though the 530 was
its own animal though.

It sounds like the F-8E(FN)s were left with the ability to use a
semi-sort of-cheesy SARH Matra 530, which was worth its weight in
ballast.

I also wondered about all this because I believe that the Demon, which
predated the Crusader, with its APG-51 could launch and illuminate for
Sparrow III, and I wondered why the USN would take a step "backward"
for the later Crusader.

On the F-101B, I guess I was getting at, "if you only need one person
on an F-102, why bother with two people on an F-101?" and it sounds
like the simple reason is the F-102 guy is pretty darn busy, and
likely to end up with non-optimal intercepts for lack of a second
noggin on the plane.

Thanks again all!

- Ian

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:49:29 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>Thomas Schoene wrote:
>> Yes. The French F-8s were specfically modified to support the Matra
>> 530 SARH version, which must have meant adding a continuous wave
>> oscillator for illumination.
>
>As Peter pointed out, this is wrong. Sorry for the disinformation.

[John Carrier]

"> I also wondered about all this because I believe that the Demon, which
> predated the Crusader, with its APG-51 could launch and illuminate for
> Sparrow III, and I wondered why the USN would take a step "backward"
> for the later Crusader.

The F-8 was conceived as a day/vfr fighter. The original design had a small
radar for gun ranging only. The F-8C (F-8U2) had a very minimal radar
(unstabilized, 16 mile range), boresight acquisition only. Only in the D&E
models, did the F-8 get a remotely decent radar. The jet was designed with
a 32 rocket pack (remember the ADC aircraft with multi-2.75" unguided
rockets?), but fires were a constant problem in testing. Don't think it was
ever used operationally, but the pack was still there through the C-model
(D&E got some extra gas instead).

By comparison, the Demon was an interceptor with a pretty good (for its day)
search radar.

R / John

[Guy Alcala]

IRBusch wrote:

> Thanks all for the feedback, and especially that very cool passage on
> a F-101B intercept.
>
> Regarding the French F-8E(FN)s, I was under the impression that they
> could support the SARH 530, if only because their radar had a
> different designation (APQ-104, vice APQ-94) than any of the US
> Crusaders. I've got a 91/92 USNI Guide that says that the radars were
> basically the same but modified to support "the French R.550 missile."
> I'd always known of the 550 as being the Magic, which I thought to be
> only an IR weapon, so I was thinking it might be a typo instead
> referring to the R530 (and not expecting any need to modify the radar
> for an IR weapon, just other components of avionics).

Certainly a typo, as Magic is an IR-only AAM, and it didn't enter service
until about 10 years after the Aeronavale bought the F-8 (the last rolled
off the line in January 1965).

> Later in the
> same paragraph it says "Presumably the modification represented by
> APQ-104 was a CW injection mode." Again, this led me to believe some
> manner of SARH weapons support (presumably the 530, not the 550), and
> hence the question on Sparrow III. It sounds as though the 530 was
> its own animal though.
>
> It sounds like the F-8E(FN)s were left with the ability to use a
> semi-sort of-cheesy SARH Matra 530, which was worth its weight in
> ballast.

To be fair, while the R.530's performance was nothing to write home about,
much of the Israeli disdain for the weapon had to do with the
un-reliability of the radar/FCS in their Mirages. An IAF pilot I've
corresponded with knows Michael Haber (it's a small air force; everyone
knows everyone), the only IAF pilot (and as far as is known, the only pilot
in the world) to score a kill with the R.530. Not that there have been
many launches; IIRR the IAF only claimed two. He says that, in recounting
the story of his R.530 kill on 29 Nov. 1966 (a MiG-19, he got another
immediately after with his guns), Haber fully expected the radar to break
lock or just break down before the missile reached the MiG, and was waiting
for it to do so with his finger on the weapons select switch when the
missile hit. No one was more surprised by the hit than Haber.

> I also wondered about all this because I believe that the Demon, which
> predated the Crusader, with its APG-51 could launch and illuminate for
> Sparrow III, and I wondered why the USN would take a step "backward"
> for the later Crusader.

Mainly because the Crusader was originally designed and entered service as
a dayfighter, while the Demon served as an all-weather fighter, later
replaced by the F-4 in that role. The F3 and F-8 were pretty much co-eval,
serving side-by-side on the big carriers. The F-8 was considered to have
'limited' all-weather capability in its later variants, and the SARH AIM-9C
was developed to make this claim more realistic, especially as the
SCB-27C/125 Essex class carriers couldn't take the F-4.

Guy

[IRBusch]

Wow, Thanks for the great info (and John Carrier too)

It sounds like perhaps the only aircraft that could reliably launch
the 530 might have been the Crusader! (Presuming, of course that the
-104 radar set was more reliable than the Mirages . . .).

I guess the thing that is suprising me is why the later marks of
Crusader never received the F3's radar set. It doesn't appear to the
uneducated naked eye looking at the outside of the plane (how's that
for a caveat!) that there was a volume problem for the equipment, and
apparently a backseater wasn't an absolute necessity, and lastly, this
would've given much better (I guess) all weather capability to the
Crusader (for continuing operations on the Essex class ships) as well
as the ability to handle Sparrow (and presumably AIM-9C as well).

At a certain point I guess the day fighter concept had "had its day"
so to speak, and by that point F3 was gone, F4 was there, Essex's were
getting decomm'd and there was no reason to keep Crusader's going . .
..

- Ian

[John Carrier]

Snip

> At a certain point I guess the day fighter concept had "had its day"
> so to speak, and by that point F3 was gone, F4 was there, Essex's were
> getting decomm'd and there was no reason to keep Crusader's going . .

Last fighter cruise was Sep 75 through Mar 76, VF-191 and 194 on Oriskany.
F-8J's. We had a simple intercept doctrine: "Give us a talley-ho."

R / John

[Thomas Schoene]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> IRBusch wrote:
>
>> I've got a 91/92 USNI Guide that says that the radars
>> were basically the same but modified to support "the French R.550
>> missile." I'd always known of the 550 as being the Magic, which I
>> thought to be only an IR weapon, so I was thinking it might be a
>> typo instead referring to the R530 (and not expecting any need to modify
>> the radar for an IR weapon, just other components of avionics).
>
> Certainly a typo, as Magic is an IR-only AAM, and it didn't enter
> service until about 10 years after the Aeronavale bought the F-8 (the
> last rolled off the line in January 1965).

Probably a confusion of dates and weapons. The F-8E(FN)s were modified to
handle the R.550 Magic 1, but not when they were delivered. That
modification occured in the 1973, as an alternative to Sidewinder (which was
compatible, but rarely used).

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f8_16.html

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[[email protected]]

I logged about 3000 hours in single seat interceptors (F86D/F102/F104A)
before ebing assigned to the F4. The Dog and the Deuce were fairly
similar in radar operation, both having a B scope (azimuth and range).
The D was a collision course interceptor, the Deuce all-aspect (except
for the rocket attack wherein it was just like a Dog). The IRST Deuce
was very flexible in that there were various modes of integration of
the radar and the IRSTS. Radar search with audio from the IR seeker
head slaved to the radar antenna, radar track with same, IR search with
no radar (4-bar scan), IR track with radar scan across target, IR track
with radar slaved, and a mickey mouse IR track, no radar, and a sort of
inverse square approach to ranging which was a pretty good way to run
up the tragte's tailpipe. The best way to range in IR only track was to
check C scam for a level look, drop down 3000 feet, press til a 30
degree up look angle; presto he was a mile away. BTW the IR could track
after-burning targets from the front quarter, too. The B58 stood out
very well at about 50 or so miles. A good Deuce radar was at least as
good as an F4D radar; we could detect jet transports and B52 out as far
as 150 miles over the water, certainly 125 over the Midwestern plains.
One reason for this was the direct view CRT as the F4's storage tube
lost about 3 db in image processing. In the CRT display a trained set
of eyeballs could pick out a target below average noise level because
it was there almost every sweep whereas scope noise was random with the
'spots' moving constantly.. (Eyeball integration - see the MIT radar
series for details). As for single versus two-seat - where the two
seater came out ahead in intercept work was low level intercepts and
night IDs. By low level I mean under 1000 AGL as far down as 300 AGL
over land or water. Night IDs on a blacked-out bogey under 1000 over a
dark ocean out of sight of land gets interesting, too. That and using a
3-cell flashlight (no built-in ID light!) to read the BuNos on those
dark blue VPs. The various VP outfits working out of Okinawa gave us
practice in those evolutions on their returns from along the DPRBC's
coastline. As for SAGE and data-link; it took a long time for the bugs
to be worked out but when they got it working I liked it - minimal
amount of radio transmissions - safety and oxygen checks, Judy, Splash,
maybe another pass or two and that was about it until handover for
recovery. I wonder what those huge monolithic SAGE buildings are used
for now? You can easily pick them out on 'Google Earth'.
Walt BJ

[Guy Alcala]

wrote:

<snip>

> A good Deuce radar was at least as
> good as an F4D radar; we could detect jet transports and B52 out as far
> as 150 miles over the water, certainly 125 over the Midwestern plains.

<snip>

Walt, you've got to be careful about leaving out the dash in F-4D on
rec.aviation.military.naval, or they'll think you're talking about _their_
F4D, the Douglas Skyray aka the Ford;-) Actually, the F4D's radar was the
APQ-50, which was the original radar chosen for the F-4 (F4H-1F, later
F-4A) Phantom II, before they decided it needed a larger diameter antenna
to meet the range requirements; APQ-50 with the larger antenna was
designated the APQ-72, and the Phantom acquired its oversized nose as a
consequence. AFAICT, the F-4C's APQ-100 seems to have been an APQ-72 with a
bombing strobe and perhaps somewhat improved mapping capability, and the
F-4D's APQ-109 an APQ-100 with ground-ranging capability and the necessary
tie-ins for Dive-toss.

Re the capabilities of the F-4D radar, O'Brien, in his book "The Hungry
Tigers", says that the F-4D's radar (he flew them at Phu Cat in the
12thTFW) just wasn't in the same league (for an interceptor) as the F-106's
MA-1, as far as ECCM modes. He may have been referring to all the IR/Radar
options, but I got the impression he meant the actual ECCM circuitry. Have
you ever heard any similar comments from other ADC guys?

Guy

[WaltBJ]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > A good Deuce radar was at least as
> > good as an F4D radar; we could detect jet transports and B52 out as far
> > as 150 miles over the water, certainly 125 over the Midwestern plains.
>
> <snip>
>
> Walt, you've got to be careful about leaving out the dash in F-4D on
> rec.aviation.military.naval, or they'll think you're talking about _their_
> F4D, the Douglas Skyray aka the Ford;-)>

<snip>

Re the capabilities of the F-4D radar, O'Brien, in his book "The Hungry
> Tigers", says that the F-4D's radar (he flew them at Phu Cat in the
> 12thTFW) just wasn't in the same league (for an interceptor) as the F-106's
> MA-1, as far as ECCM modes. He may have been referring to all the IR/Radar
> options, but I got the impression he meant the actual ECCM circuitry. Have
> you ever heard any similar comments from other ADC guys?>
> Guy

Guy, O'Brien's correct as to the ECCM. The 102 was better against ECM
than the F4-D. (Not the Ford; the Deuce was way better than that little
delta wing, including in ACM, fairly easily outflying it.)
The 6 had some really cute tricks including deceptive non-IR ECCM
modes. The Phantom seemed to depend on brute power for a 'burn-through'
to see the target despite ECM 'cloaking'. Also I don't know what was
built into the Sparrows but that giant 'spotlight' CW illuminator must
have tested pretty good against ECM or the USN would have added some
more tricks to protect their precious CVs. FWIW I went through ADC's
Interceptor Weapons School (including the IRSTS) in 1963 and got a
pretty good idea of what the 6's new ECCM mods were. As for the
Phantom, our Ds could pick up the KC135s at 75+ over the Thailand
hills. An F4J pilot with me one night (we were SEAD/escorting AC130
gunships) was amazed to see that. I asked him "Aren't your Js that
good?" He replied "Not after 3 or 4 carrier landings . . ." The Zipper
was so simple that the new ECM mods (multiple target, range gate
stealer, angle deception) didn't affect it. Noise just aided the Zipper
as the max range on the 104A's scope was only 20 miles. Get a big blob
of noise, center it on the scope, go 2.0 and see what was making the
jamming . . .
Walt BJ

[Jim]

John Carrier wrote:

> Last fighter cruise was Sep 75 through Mar 76, VF-191 and 194 on Oriskany.
> F-8J's. We had a simple intercept doctrine: "Give us a talley-ho."
>
> R / John
>
>

Were you with one of those squadrons at that time?



ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval)

[John Carrier]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> John Carrier wrote:
>
>> Last fighter cruise was Sep 75 through Mar 76, VF-191 and 194 on
>> Oriskany. F-8J's. We had a simple intercept doctrine: "Give us a
>> talley-ho."
>>
>> R / John
>
> Were you with one of those squadrons at that time?

VF-191

[Jim]

John Carrier wrote:
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John Carrier wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Last fighter cruise was Sep 75 through Mar 76, VF-191 and 194 on
>>>Oriskany. F-8J's. We had a simple intercept doctrine: "Give us a
>>>talley-ho."
>>>
>>>R / John
>>
>>Were you with one of those squadrons at that time?
>
>
> VF-191
>
>
Which side of the tower did you pass by during the 500ft (MSL) S-N
flyby? Or might you have been the one to pass below the tower and
between crash crew building?




ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval)