Re: Vietnam era F-4s Q

[Ed Rasimus]

(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

[Guy Alcala]

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

[Juvat]

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

[Buzzer]

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>

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[Buzzer]

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...

[Walt BJ]

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

[Les Matheson]

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

[Les Matheson]

The better D radar range was due totally to the antenna size. The E had
virtually the same guts (at the beginning) but the smaller radar dish to
accommodate the gun cut down on antenna gain.

On an F-5 size target, head-on, 30 miles was a great pick-up in an E.
Tankers were routinely well outside 70 in beacon mode and plenty of time for
a decent tanker turn point parallel rendezvous.

I really liked the old CRT scope better than the DSCG/MSDG scope of later
years. I missed the backseat hydraulic gauge. I know why they did it, but
should have put a separate video display in for Pave Spike, etc.

Never had radar overheating problems (that I recall) at Eglin in the summer
in E models, or at Kadena or PI in Cs or Ds

Didn't fly the Rhino in combat, but it had decent systems, just not great
systems. Best airframe mod. to the G model was the dual Tach gas gauge in
the rear cockpit (IMHO).

Les

"Walt BJ" > wrote in message
om...
> I remember the D radar having about 20-25% better range than the E.
> the E wasn't all that bad; ran about 50-60 miles on other F4s over
> water. Our 390TFS Ds could pickup tankers at 75 miles over Thailand.
> (Cherry anchor) I had a USN F4J pilot in my back seat one night
> gunship escort mission ( can't for the life of me remember why)and he
> marveled at the radar pickup. I asked him why he thought it was soo
> good when he was flying the J model. He told me after about 4
> 'standard' carrier landings the radar wasn't so hot anymore. One
> problem we had with th E was overheating on the ground at DaNang in
> the summer trying to run bit checks taxiing out. So we left it in
> standby and did them airborne.
> AFIK we never took a gun pod North. The O6s had an E with a CL drop
> and 2 SUU23s on the wings but I don't think anyone below full bird got
> to fly it. We did hang SUU23s on our Ds for in-country work. Going
> North it was CL, mers, ters sometimes, AIM9s and AIM7s and a jammer
> pod, usually in the rt fwd Sparrow well. Ed's on the money on the
> 36/37 RHAW gear - I monitored the audio and kept an eye on the AZ
> strobe when the audio sounded interesting.
> As for over-all radar performance TAC blew it when they went to the
> storage tube instead of a straight CRT. They threw away at least 3 db
> performance. AMAF the average D was about equal to our F102As at RG
> AFB. (We had the best radar people I ever met in the USAF). We could
> pick up 135s and B52s well over 100 miles over land. FWIW a CRT will
> let a trained eye pick up a target as low as minus 3 db compared to
> the average noise level - because it's there all the time and the
> noise jumps around. In the storage tube the average noise level
> becomes the cut-off level and you have a nice clean scope and threw
> away maybe 10% of your range capability.
> Also - dropping IRSTS was really dumb. I used the Deuce's IR system
> and while it had bugs (LN2 leaks, usually) when it was working it was
> superb. Very flexible, very sneaky, very good at low level - TAC F100D
> low level.
> BTW every fighter I flew except the F86F had AI radar in it so I was
> no cherry when I got in the F4 - by then I had about 3000 hours
> pushing a TV around the sky.
> Walt BJ

[Ed Rasimus]

"Les Matheson" > wrote:

>If your WSO didn't do RHAW checks and use the radar to clear for traffic,
>you should have busted him for stupidity.
>
>Les
>F-4C(WW),D,E,G/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO retired

You can be certain that the matter was discussed in great detail in
debrief. Most of the WSO's that I flew with learned quickly.

And, it shouldn't be limited to just WSO's in peacetime.
Front-seaters, just out of training in those "between the wars" years
were often just as clueless. I've mentioned here in the past the guys
who busted TAC checks on Bardenas Range because they chased a run away
INS and didn't cross check pilotage, dead reckoning, radar predictions
and (most obviously) Bardenas TACAN right on the range.

There were also nose-gunners who, having never been threatened, flew
without paying attention to the RHAW--I explained carefully to them
that it is always good to know who is looking at you. It also degrades
your reputation if other folks regularly come home with a lot of 16mm
color film of your aircraft.

Similarly there were a lot of guys in both cockpits who hadn't figured
out that when we cruised down the Med, back and forth between Incirlik
and Torrejon, that painting the area ahead in 200 mile scope could let
you find your way quite nicely from coast out to Sardinia, to Sicily,
to Crete, to Cyprus--all distinct island outlines.

Yeah, the good ol' days. I sure miss it!!!


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

[Ed Rasimus]

Buzzer > wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:40:46 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>wrote:
>
>>Buzzer > wrote:
>>
>>>The APS-107D was an excellent, versatile system.
>>
>>Let me see, for comparison sake, would you prefer to ride in my pit
>>downtown with an APS-107D or in an E-model with an APR-36/37,
>>particularly if we are going to be hunting and killing SAM sites? Do
>>you like colored lights better than a clear vector scope display and
>>TDU? Better launch detection than the AS (Azimuth Sector) light and
>>sequence logic of the 36/37?
>
>In the 1 1/2 year period between the introduction in SEA of the
>APS-107D and the APR-36/37 which would you have preferred? The APS-54,
>Vector 4, pre-qual/qual APR-25/26 or APS-107D? Especially if you knew
>the APS-107D detected missile launch the same way as the year and a
>half in the future APR-36/37?

OK, if the 107 is the only game in town, which means "pre-E model"
then you've got to go with it. The APR-25/26 was a reasonable system,
but subject to a lot of false signals and definitely capable of being
saturated. But, once the E comes along with the 36/37, the
ideosyncracies of the 107 make it a lousy choice.
>
>We're talking debriefing hundreds of crews. A small percentage
>complained at first and wished for their old APR-25/26. Over time the
>complaints went down and some even liked the system...

"some even liked" is a long way from your first "an excellent,
versatile system." I'm certain that with more experience with the 107
I would have felt more comfortable, but in only a handful of combat
rides in the D, I felt totally naked. I badly wanted my E-model back.

The 36/37 became so reliable for me, that I could tell my backseater
"true or false" just based on the audio, without going to the display.

When we got the ALR-46 installed in the Spring of '73, we weren't
going high threat anymore, but the system looked great. The only scary
part was when the tech reps were asking us to do F-4 to F-4 locks on
each other, with and without pods operating to see what the display
did. I couldn't help but wondering that if they didn't know for sure
what our own radars would do, how could we have confidence that they
knew what the enemy radar would show?


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

Ed, your between war F-4 stories are some of your most interesting.

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >> I flew the E and D in SEA and then the C model in Europe for four
> >> years after. All three models had a radar that could reach out for
> >> mapping and beacon targets to 200 miles. Clearly at that range the
> >> data presented was very general. Scans were horizontal, +/- 60 degrees
> >> from center. C and D offered two bar scan while the E had a three bar
> >> scan.
> >
> >APQ-72 (F-4B) and APQ-100 were almost identical for A-A use, the main
> >difference being that the Air Force required the latter to have an
> >adjustable range strobe for bombing (not a very useful feature, actually,
> >given the way it was implemented).
>
> Think NUKE. The adjustable range bombing strobe (manual screw driver
> adjustment in the C model) was used to set the range strobe for timer
> calculations in radar nuke deliveries. Most used five mile strobe, but
> the good bombers used four mile strobe and we could drop radar
> low-angle drogue or lay-downs well within 400 feet. It wasn't useful
> for conventional weapons delivery.

It was the latter I was thinking of, re its usefulness.

> The ground lock-on in boresight for Dive Toss (10 mile scope in D and
> 5 mile in E models) was automatic ranging input to the weapons release
> computer for conventional delivery. Didn't require and strobe
> adjustments, simply lock on and designate the target.

Yeah, I just wasn't sure if there were any major internal changes to the radar,
or if it was purely due to connecting it to the new WRCS.

> > Typical max. contact ranges on a MiG in
> >Vietnam seem to be in the 20-30 n. mile range; I've got one account
> >claiming a contact at 33 or maybe it was 35nm, which was unusual.
>
> Clearly a function of radar cross section and aspect of the target.
> Head on a MiG is mighty small. Tankers were easy to lock on fifty mile
> scope. And with tanker beacon mode, I had a good GIB who regularly
> like to take 120 mile "Judy".

Yup, which is why I specified MiG.

> > In addition to the wide sweep of
> >120 degrees, there's also a narrow 60 deg. sweep selectable; there's also a
> >choice of one or _THREE_ (not two; Ed's memory is playing him false here)
> >bar scan.
>
> I don't have my F-4 -1 any more (fervently wish that I did!), but I'm
> pretty sure that the C had two bar scan and the E had 3 bar.

I don't think so, Ed, unless your C's were somehow unique. Both the -34 (change
0, 15 Feb 1979, and changes up to 9) and the rear cockpit diagram from the
F-4C-1 (reprinted in the Detail and Scale book on the F-4C and D) show 1 and 3
bar for both C and D.

> Didn't
> fly the D enough to really have much memory other than of the accursed
> APS-107D radar warning fiasco.

<snip>

> >> Most of the F-4s in SEA flying from Thai bases were E models by '72.
> >> There were no D models at Korat in '72 until a deployment from Korea
> >> of the 35th TFS. Tahkli got the deployed folks from Seymour Johnson in
> >> E models. Udorn which was primary for MiG-CAP flew both Ds and Es. The
> >> AIM-9J was quite reliable
> >
> >Well, that's being a bit optimistic. 4 kills in 31 attempts (pK .126),
> >with four of those attempts involving failures to launch, isn't all that
> >much better than the AIM-9B/E. Admittedly, probably four if not more of
> >the misses weren't the fault of the missile but of the inadequate
> >pre-combat testing, which assumed a far greater range for low angle shots,
> >especially at high-Q, than proved to be the case.
>
> Stats are often misleading. Pure numbers don't tell the stories about
> who was shooting, what the conditions were, etc. I never had a doubt
> that if the missile growled, it would do the job. I also had enough
> time on target to be over the "buck fever" that caused a lot of guys
> to unleash the "white wingman" simply because there was a MiG (or at
> least an aircraft) in the forward quadrant.

Combat Snap isn't just stats, Ed. It gives the basic firing conditions and the
observed results for every attempted AIM-9J launch in SEA. Accompanying text
expands on the problems experienced. Most were mainly due to rushing the
missile into service with inadequate testing, but there's no doubt that the
firing envelope against a maneuvering target was far wider than was the case for
a -9B or E. Madden's second kill on 9 September demonstrated that. But your
belief that if the missile growled, it would do the job is optimistic, as was
shown during the kill scored on 16 September, when 8 AIM-9Js were fired in a
low-aspect, high Q tail chase at altitudes of 50 to 500 feet AGL, G never
exceeded 1. Chevy 1 fired his four, with the following results:

1. Miss. Good tone -- guided, lost in haze.

2. Miss. Good tone -- hit ground.

3. Miss. Good tone -- hit ground.

4. Miss. Guided -- lost in haze.

Chevy 3 then fired his four, as follows:

5. Miss. Ballistic -- Marginal tone.

6. Miss. Ballistic -- Marginal tone.

7. Miss. Good tone -- Guided, no detonation.

8. Kill. Aided by Mig maneuver.

Assuming that shots 5 and 6 were poor shots, misses on shots 1 through 4 were
almost certainly due to firing at excessive range, which was not the fault of
the crews in this case. After some urgent questions had been sent back to the
U.S. following this engagement, testing established that the maximum range in
these conditions was considerably less than had been thought, and in fact was
less than that of the AIM-9E. This was found to be due to the torque feedback
servo unit added to the AIM-9J, which tended to overcontrol in low angle-off
shots and thus **** off energy, reducing range. Shot 7's failure was likely due
to fuzing, exactly the same as the AIM-9E.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:20:16 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Removed and replaced by the forward antennas (and maybe the pre-amps) for
> >the RWR in the Air Force a/c.
>
> Late 1966 F-4C APR-25 install had the forward pre-amps just behind the
> antennas, and then later in the F-4D APS-107 had some under the radar
> package and later moved out to the bottom sides and to the rear on the
> donkey.....
>
> I seem to remember something about the IR package on the radar was
> replaced with the CW package for the sparrows. So the IR would have
> been long gone before the APR-25 install?

<snip>

Hi, Bob, I don't know that any AAA-4s were ever actually installed on the Cs:
IIRR the first Cs lacked the donkey dick altogether, and it was added back on
as they needed a place to put the forward APR-25 antennas and pre-amps. CW
was original equipment.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:40:46 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
> wrote:
>
> >Buzzer > wrote:
> >
> >>The APS-107D was an excellent, versatile system. Much better launch
> >>detect and on some aircraft they could be switched to the forward
> >>antennas so the pod jamming didn't bother as much. Just glad I didn't
> >>have to work on them six months after they were installed and all the
> >>little rf cables had come apart!<G>
> >
> >Let me see, for comparison sake, would you prefer to ride in my pit
> >downtown with an APS-107D or in an E-model with an APR-36/37,
> >particularly if we are going to be hunting and killing SAM sites? Do
> >you like colored lights better than a clear vector scope display and
> >TDU? Better launch detection than the AS (Azimuth Sector) light and
> >sequence logic of the 36/37?
>
> In the 1 1/2 year period between the introduction in SEA of the
> APS-107D and the APR-36/37 which would you have preferred? The APS-54,
> Vector 4, pre-qual/qual APR-25/26 or APS-107D? Especially if you knew
> the APS-107D detected missile launch the same way as the year and a
> half in the future APR-36/37?

Bob, I thought they'd modified the APR-26 to look at the signal
characteristics instead of just the power level so as to cutdown on false
launch warnings (the NVN 'playing the L-band'), and that this was carried
over to the APR-37?

Guy

[Buzzer]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:59:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>>In the 1 1/2 year period between the introduction in SEA of the
>>APS-107D and the APR-36/37 which would you have preferred? The APS-54,
>>Vector 4, pre-qual/qual APR-25/26 or APS-107D? Especially if you knew
>>the APS-107D detected missile launch the same way as the year and a
>>half in the future APR-36/37?
>
>OK, if the 107 is the only game in town, which means "pre-E model"
>then you've got to go with it.

There were some F-4E that had a newer version of APS-107 installed. I
worked on them at Eglin in 1968. The cables to the processor were
about a 1/4 inch short. Amazing they didn't rip out after one flight.
I don't remember the sequence, but I think they were the first into
the APR-36/37 mod line. I don't remember or never knew the reason for
changing to the APR-36/37. My guess is the AS light on the APR-36/37
won out.

>The APR-25/26 was a reasonable system,
>but subject to a lot of false signals and definitely capable of being
>saturated. But, once the E comes along with the 36/37, the
>ideosyncracies of the 107 make it a lousy choice.
>>
>>We're talking debriefing hundreds of crews. A small percentage
>>complained at first and wished for their old APR-25/26. Over time the
>>complaints went down and some even liked the system...
>
>"some even liked" is a long way from your first "an excellent,
>versatile system." I'm certain that with more experience with the 107
>I would have felt more comfortable, but in only a handful of combat
>rides in the D, I felt totally naked. I badly wanted my E-model back.

My first "an excellent, versatile system" is my opinon knowing what it
could do, along with debriefings. If aircrews didn't complain about
something with rhaw or pods it was almost like receving a standing
ovation.

>The 36/37 became so reliable for me, that I could tell my backseater
>"true or false" just based on the audio, without going to the display.
>
>When we got the ALR-46 installed in the Spring of '73, we weren't
>going high threat anymore, but the system looked great. The only scary
>part was when the tech reps were asking us to do F-4 to F-4 locks on
>each other, with and without pods operating to see what the display
>did. I couldn't help but wondering that if they didn't know for sure
>what our own radars would do, how could we have confidence that they
>knew what the enemy radar would show?

They probably didn't know what our own radars would do "exactly" and
didn't know what the latest intel was on threats. Part of it was
sharing classified info that one command would have and wouldn't give
to another and part was intel.
About the same thing on the APR-25/26, APS-107, and APR-36/37 when
they came into service.
Some of the things that went on in the 60's and early 70's I wondered
if intel was really an empty office with a nameplate on the door.
Intel says no sams in the area. False strobes on multiple aircraft,
multiple flights. Three or four days later false strobes down an F-4!
Shucks I guess we better change that to sams in the area...

[Zajcevi]

Juvat > wrote in message >...
>
> >5. Last question is related to Rivet Haste project F-4Es. How many of
> >these birds were sent to SEA in fall of 1972?
>
> From the summary page of a report titled, "TAC Project 72A-068F: Rivet
> Haste SEA Intoduction (U) Final Report" dated April 1973

This is great stuff, never see such a reports, only Michels Clashes
based on them.
Thanks for posting it.

> "The introduction team was in place at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force
> Base, Thailand, from 12 November 1972 to 12 January 1973. The 20 Rivet
> Hasteaircraft and aircrews were integrated into the 555th Tactical
> Fighter Squadron of the 432d Tactitcal Reconnaissance Wing and
> consisted of all Block 48 F-4E air superiority aircraft.
>
> During this period of introduction, the Rivet Haste aircraft flew 238
> combat sorties for a total of 643.6 combat hours..."
>
> The 20 jets did NOT show up in one wave.
>
> The first increment of 6 Rivet Haste aircraft arrived at Udorn on 20
> November...first in-theather flights were flown on 24 November. [note:
> none of these 6 had APX-81 Combat Tree]
>
> Second batch of 6 Rivet haste arrived thusly...5 on 18 December 1972,
> and number 6 the following day, 19 December (delay was due to radio
> failure departing George AFB with the others). All 6 jets had Combat
> Tree.
>
> Last batch of 8 arrived at Udorn on 13 January 1973. Only 4 of the 8
> had Combat Tree.

Anyway, are this dates correct? Introduction team was in Thailand from
12.11.1972 to 12.01.1973 and first batch arrived on 20.11.1972 (after
8 days), last on 13.01.1973 (1 day after intro team left Thailand).
This is strange, intro team was some kind of ground personel or
something else?

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

Would you mind posting some other details from these both reports?

Ivan

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >> I don't have my F-4 -1 any more (fervently wish that I did!), but I'm
> >> pretty sure that the C had two bar scan and the E had 3 bar.
> >
> >I don't think so, Ed, unless your C's were somehow unique. Both the -34 (change
> >0, 15 Feb 1979, and changes up to 9) and the rear cockpit diagram from the
> >F-4C-1 (reprinted in the Detail and Scale book on the F-4C and D) show 1 and 3
> >bar for both C and D.
>
> Well, then that may explain my confusion. If the C/D had 3-bar, then
> it was the E that had 2-bar. I recall there was a difference, so it
> might have been a reversal of what I originally said.

And checking the R/C/P diagram from the -1 reprinted in the Detail and Scale book on
the F-4E, I see that it does indeed show 1 or 2 bar, so while you switched them, I've
managed to overlook the E having two vice three bar all these years. The lettering
is pretty small on the diagram, but that didn't stop me with the C/D, and I hereby
chastise myself severely for such an oversight. I'm just going to have to break down
and buy myself an F-4E-1 or -34.

> Our C's at Torrejon weren't unique--just old.

I was trying to be gentle ;-)

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:35:18 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >> In the 1 1/2 year period between the introduction in SEA of the
> >> APS-107D and the APR-36/37 which would you have preferred? The APS-54,
> >> Vector 4, pre-qual/qual APR-25/26 or APS-107D? Especially if you knew
> >> the APS-107D detected missile launch the same way as the year and a
> >> half in the future APR-36/37?
> >
> >Bob, I thought they'd modified the APR-26 to look at the signal
> >characteristics instead of just the power level so as to cutdown on false
> >launch warnings (the NVN 'playing the L-band'), and that this was carried
> >over to the APR-37?
>
> I don't know the history of the F-4C APR-26 after last quarter of
> 1967. I remember on the F-105 weasel the Bowman mod that tied the
> launch into the APR-25 strobe pointing to the site. No memory of any
> changes to the launch detect for the APR-26 on the F-105 in 1969 at
> Korat. Seems like I would remember that since it would have been like
> the APR-37 my primary system at that time.
> The AS light on the APR-36/37 was the simple version of the ALR-31 on
> the weasel which I think had been around for a couple years.

You're right and I was misremembering. It seems that APR-37 was essentially
the APR-26 with that modification, but that APR-26 itself wasn't improved.
Here's what I've got, from Jenkins' book on the Thud:

"The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26
replacement in April [1966]. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver
was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a
Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. The 934-1B
differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of
the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2
missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for
an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air
Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no
compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Only
after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the
APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the
amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower
threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been
displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and
the improved sets redesignated APR-37."

This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was
eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the
APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his his
section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the
'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits:

"A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile
guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed
on the APR-25 azimuth indicator."

BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to
dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative.

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Buzzer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:35:18 GMT, Guy Alcala
>> > wrote:

>> The AS light on the APR-36/37 was the simple version of the ALR-31 on
>> the weasel which I think had been around for a couple years.
>
>You're right and I was misremembering. It seems that APR-37 was essentially
>the APR-26 with that modification, but that APR-26 itself wasn't improved.
>Here's what I've got, from Jenkins' book on the Thud:
>
>"The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26
>replacement in April [1966].

Not to disparage Jenkins, who's done great research on the F-105, but
"potential replacement in April (1966)" doesn't track well with my
experience. I arrived at Korat in May of '66 and at that time the
APR-25/26 was just being initially installed in the operational jets.
We had maybe a dozen airplanes out of 40 or so with the "vector" gear.
Installation of the entire fleet wasn't completed until mid-June. I
hadn't even seen or been briefed on the RHAW gear while in training at
Nellis through April of '66. To be seeking replacement before initial
installation doesn't make any sense.


> An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver
>was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a
>Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. The 934-1B
>differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of
>the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2
>missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for
>an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air
>Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no
>compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Only
>after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the
>APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the
>amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower
>threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been
>displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and
>the improved sets redesignated APR-37."

I'm not a "squeaks and beeps" EW, but here's what I was taught about
the sequence for the SA-2. The initial TDU (Threat Display Unit) light
were for "Lo" indicating a low PRF (pulse recurrence frequency), as
you got lit up with both beams of the Fan Song (Az & El), you got a
"Hi" for high PRF. When missile data upload was taking place, another
frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you
got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were
received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got
the "Launch" light.
>
>This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was
>eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the
>APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his his
>section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the
>'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits:
>
>"A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile
>guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed
>on the APR-25 azimuth indicator."

While the "correlate a C-band missile guidance signal to a specific
E-F band signal" tracks with what I said above regarding "launch"
lites, it doesn't equate with what the definition of the AS light was.
The AS (azimuth sector, but colloquially the "aw ****" light) meant
you were illuminated by both the horizontal and elevation beams of the
Fan Song at high PRF. It literally meant that you were the designated
target for that particular missile system. It did NOT relate to a
missile actually being launched.
>
>BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to
>dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative.

Yes, different frequency bands displayed different strobes. A Fire Can
was a solid strobe, a Fan Song a three dash line, and something else
(CRS strikes here) for an AI (air intercept) radar.

In the high threat arena, the 25/26 was notorious for degenerating
into a big "spider" in the center of the scope.


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

[Buzzer]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>"The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26
>replacement in April [1966]. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver
>was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a
>Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin.

And there we were in June 1966 sitting on the ground at Eglin with the
F-4C WWIV waiting for range time on the SADS and cancelling for rain
when another site was available. Here I thought and was led to believe
the Eglin SADS was the only one available..

>The 934-1B
>differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of
>the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2
>missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for
>an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air
>Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no
>compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function.

Shame they didn't have to stand up before a couple hundred pilots and
say we see no compelling reason to give you a better system that would
give you more confidence and might save your life! Welcome to the
realities of the Vietnam War..

>Only
>after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the
>APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the
>amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower
>threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been
>displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and
>the improved sets redesignated APR-37."

The original story I heard in June 1966 at the APR-25/26 class at
Keesler and later from the tech reps was the missile guidance signal
was feed into a dummy load. That caused the Activity Light to come on.
Then when they launched and switched to active guidance at a higher
power the Launch Light came on. Another variation on that was they
interrogated the missiles at low power before launch that gave the
Activity and then went high power to guide giving Launch light. No
mention at all of how the missile was quided until I took the
APR-36/37 factory course in 1968 at ATI/ITEK in Palo Alto, CA. Here
they went into the guidance pulse train and what the APR-37 looked at.
They talked like this was recent intel and here the info had been
around for years.

>This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was
>eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the
>APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light).

I'm not sure how the ALR-31 was tied into everything else on the
F-105. I saw the circuit boards with a zillion surface mounts ICs on
them and I was in awe. It made the APR-26 and 36 look like crystal
radios. I remember a control box on the left rear panel. Little meter
about 3/4 inch across that indicated beams centered when the needle
centered sticking up in the center. How anyone could see the thing
while flying was beyond me.

>Jenkins, further on his his
>section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the
>'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits:
>
>"A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile
>guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed
>on the APR-25 azimuth indicator."

I've seen the explanation of the mod somewhere on the net or in a
book. I can't find it now on the net, but I might have it saved to a
CD. Bowman might not be the right spelling, but sounds close to that.
He was an airman at Korat ECM shop when he got the idea. He was kind
of a legend when I got to Korat in Nov 1968. Went on to work for
ATI/ITEK..

>BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to
>dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative.

I don't remember what the article said. If it worked during self-test
on the weasels I don't remember seeing it. Flashed the strobe on and
off is as close as I can get.

[Buzzer]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>"A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile
>guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed
>on the APR-25 azimuth indicator."

Here is one reference:
Bauman Mod
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1998/AS/ctpn.html

I can't confirm that is the scope display..

[Tex Houston]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was
> eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into
the
> APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his
his
> section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the
> 'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits:
> Guy
>

I suspect it is not "Bowman" but "Bauman" as this sounds very much like the
project he invented at Takhli about 1966-1967.

Regards,

Tex

[Les Matheson]

You got most of it correct. Initial acquisition was usually done by SAM in
Low PRF therefore you got a Low light, Switching to High PRF changed the
light to High. If you were in both AZ and EL sectors you got the AS
(Acquisition Sector) light. Launch for the SA-2 was done on acquisition of
additional signals in a two step process. Lights and tones for warning.
Not the most accurate indicator, but the only one we had.

Different strobe types were for frequency differentiation. Can't say more,
besides I forgot the break points. Too many systems in the head since then.

Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not a "squeaks and beeps" EW, but here's what I was taught about
> the sequence for the SA-2. The initial TDU (Threat Display Unit) light
> were for "Lo" indicating a low PRF (pulse recurrence frequency), as
> you got lit up with both beams of the Fan Song (Az & El), you got a
> "Hi" for high PRF. When missile data upload was taking place, another
> frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you
> got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were
> received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got
> the "Launch" light.
> >

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >Buzzer wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:35:18 GMT, Guy Alcala
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> The AS light on the APR-36/37 was the simple version of the ALR-31 on
> >> the weasel which I think had been around for a couple years.
> >
> >You're right and I was misremembering. It seems that APR-37 was essentially
> >the APR-26 with that modification, but that APR-26 itself wasn't improved.
> >Here's what I've got, from Jenkins' book on the Thud:
> >
> >"The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26
> >replacement in April [1966].
>
> Not to disparage Jenkins, who's done great research on the F-105, but
> "potential replacement in April (1966)" doesn't track well with my
> experience. I arrived at Korat in May of '66 and at that time the
> APR-25/26 was just being initially installed in the operational jets.
> We had maybe a dozen airplanes out of 40 or so with the "vector" gear.
> Installation of the entire fleet wasn't completed until mid-June. I
> hadn't even seen or been briefed on the RHAW gear while in training at
> Nellis through April of '66. To be seeking replacement before initial
> installation doesn't make any sense.

As noted below, this was the WWIII fit, and they were just starting procurement.
The question was whether they'd confirm
procurement of the APR-26 or go with the HRB-Singer set. Almost no sets of either
type had yet been fitted to trials a/c, and only a few of the APR-25/-26/IR-133 to
the F-100F WWs.

> > An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver
> >was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a
> >Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin. The 934-1B
> >differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of
> >the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2
> >missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for
> >an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air
> >Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no
> >compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function. Only
> >after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the
> >APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the
> >amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower
> >threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been
> >displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and
> >the improved sets redesignated APR-37."
>
> I'm not a "squeaks and beeps" EW, but here's what I was taught about
> the sequence for the SA-2. The initial TDU (Threat Display Unit) light
> were for "Lo" indicating a low PRF (pulse recurrence frequency), as
> you got lit up with both beams of the Fan Song (Az & El), you got a
> "Hi" for high PRF.

H'mm that seems a bit off. Normally, fire control sets search at a lower PRF, then
track at a higher one. FWIW, the first available site I could find credits Fan
Song C/E with the following PRFs:

PRF 828-1440 Search. 1656-2880 Trk.

Fan Song B and F would show similar differences in PRF, although the specific
numbers would probably be different. You need the lower PRF for search/acquisition
to eliminate second time around range ambiguity, which also allows you to use
longer (hence more powerful) pulses. But you lose range resolution, so once
detected the radar will normally switch to a higher PRF for tracking (same with the
F-4, btw).

So, Low PRF would indicate general search mode, High PRF would indicate tracking
_somebody_ (at shorter range). That at least would be the case with the APR-25.
While you'd undoubtedly BE in both beams while the radar was tracking you or
someone close to the same LoS (as Marshall mentions in his LB II book, tracking
usually had to done manually after pods arrived), the PRF lights wouldn't be
indicating position in the beam per se, but just the radar PRF, a far simpler
procedure. Location in the beam sweep was a later addition -- That was what the
ALR-31 (and the same or similar circuit in the APR-36, attached to the A/S light)
would do. From the Air & Space article Bob referenced:

"Klimec set out to improve on the existing RHAW system, which only told you that a
SAM was looking, or launching, and gave only a general bearing to the radar source.
At this early stage in anti-radar development, before specially designed missiles
that home in on radar signals were available, the target still had to be visually
acquired and attacked with conventional weapons like rockets, guns, or bombs.

"The Fan Song was one of the first electronic scanning radars--it directed its
energy without having to move its antenna. "The way the Soviets built the Fan Song
was to have [one] radar that tracks both the aircraft and the missile," Klimec
says. "It would scan across 20 degrees and then go off the air, because you had to
shut the radar down in order to preclude any kind of problems with the energy
coming back inside and blowing out equipment--and then it would fly back, come back
on again, and scan 20 degrees, and go off the air."

"The radar cycled several times per second and was directed so that a targeted
aircraft was located at the center of the scan sector, which enabled the missile to
be maneuvered freely inside, while the target was simultaneously tracked by the
radar.

"So it dawned on me that if we could detect when the radar came on, and we could
determine when the aircraft was illuminated on the radar in the main beam, and we
could detect when the radar shut down to fly back, we could calculate the position
of the plane relative to the scan sector," Klimec says. It was known that the Fan
Song took about 100 milliseconds to complete a scan, so if an aircraft was
"painted" by the radar 50 milliseconds after the radar turned on, the aircraft was
in the mid-point of the scan sector. "And the aircraft ordinarily did not get to
the center of the sector unless somebody put him there--and since the tracking scan
system could only track one aircraft to make an intercept on one aircraft, if you
found yourself in the center of the scan sector and you found you stayed there,
then you knew somebody had selected you as a target," he says.

"After design engineers devised equipment to verify Klimec's theory, he began
monitoring the Eglin Fan Song simulator's emissions from the top of a hangar. "I
talked on the phone to the radar site and got them to move it a little bit, and we
verified that we could detect when the radar came on to start the scan, we could
detect when it went off the air, and we could detect when we got the large spike of
energy as the main beam came by," Klimec says. Klimec's innovation eventually
allowed fighter crews to know whether or not they were targets and to take action
only if they were."

So, prior to the ALR-31/APR-36, you might be in one or both beams and getting High
PRF, but not be in the center of the Fan Song sweep because it was actually
targeting some other a/c close to the same angle between the radar and you, leading
to unnecessary maneuvers and high pulse rates. You'd also pick up the L-band
guidance signal, again without necessarily being the target.

> When missile data upload was taking place, another
> frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you
> got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were
> received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got
> the "Launch" light.

Right, the guidance used the C-band dish on the left of this picture (the E/F or
G-band tracking antennas are the horizontal and vertical troughs):

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/fan_song2.jpg

>
> >
> >This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was
> >eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into the
> >APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his his
> >section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the
> >'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits:
> >
> >"A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile
> >guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed
> >on the APR-25 azimuth indicator."
>
> While the "correlate a C-band missile guidance signal to a specific
> E-F band signal" tracks with what I said above regarding "launch"
> lites, it doesn't equate with what the definition of the AS light was.

I know, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. The A/S and the above mod are two
separate things. Here's what I'm talking about (again from the Air & Space article
Bob pointed out):

"As tactics were developed in the air, field modifications to the Wild Weasel
systems continued on the ground. A key weakness of the equipment was that if
several SAM sites were displayed on the scope and the light that signaled a launch
was illuminated, there was no way to know which site had fired and from which
direction the SAM was coming. "I heard the crews complaining about that," says
Weldon Bauman, who in 1967 was a junior enlisted technician at Takhli. "And I
thought Well, if I knew more about the signal, then maybe we could do something
about it." Bauman became a Wild Weasel legend for devising a system similar to Bob
Klemic's but that sidestepped cumbersome and lengthy procurement procedures and
could be hot-wired into the aircraft in the field immediately. But to do it, he
first needed access to sensitive data about the nature of SAM site radar emissions,
and after convincing an EWO to escort him into the intelligence section, he got the
information he needed. "I sat down and got the real-time data--the same day then
was real time," Bauman says. "I found out what they were seeing and then went back
and designed a circuit and it worked." When activated, Bauman's modification
cleared the scope of all information except for a blip that indicated the launching
site. Tom Wilson, a former F-105 EWO, marveled at Bauman's ingenuity and his
modesty. "This kid had two stripes, and he was so damn smart it was unreal," Wilson
says. "When I asked him how he came up with the mod, he said, "It was real easy.
Just three little parts wired into the line for the scope, and a switch, and it was
done.' "

> The AS (azimuth sector, but colloquially the "aw ****" light) meant
> you were illuminated by both the horizontal and elevation beams of the
> Fan Song at high PRF. It literally meant that you were the designated
> target for that particular missile system. It did NOT relate to a
> missile actually being launched.

Right, see above.


> >BTW, how was this displayed by the strobe? I've seen references elsewhere to
> >dashed versus solid lines or something similar, but nothing authoritative.
>
> Yes, different frequency bands displayed different strobes. A Fire Can
> was a solid strobe, a Fan Song a three dash line, and something else
> (CRS strikes here) for an AI (air intercept) radar.
>
> In the high threat arena, the 25/26 was notorious for degenerating
> into a big "spider" in the center of the scope.

Thanks. BTW, in the case of say a two-ringer growing to a three, did the strobe
extend in from the periphery, or out from the center? I've always assumed it was
the latter (looking similar to a PPI display), but I've never seen a source I trust
which says which it was.

Thanks,

Guy

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ivan
blurted out:

>This is great stuff...Thanks for posting it.

You're welcome!

>Anyway, are this dates correct?

Yes they are.

>This is strange, intro team was some kind of ground personel or
>something else?

Yes, staff personel from Eglin AFB (the Tactical Air Warfare
Center_TAWC) and Nellis AFB (the Tactical Fighter Weapons
Center_TFWC).

Their purpose was to aid PACAF in expeditiously phasing the Rivet
Haste aircraft into the combat environment, including orientation,
familiarization, briefing, and evaluating the initial employment of
Rivet Haste jets and crews.

>> I also have a copy of the Project CHECO report "COMBAT SNAP: AIM-9J
>> Southeast Asia Introduction," but Guy addressed the issue for you.
>
>Would you mind posting some other details from these both reports?

No problem...anything you're looking for, specifically? The Rivet
Haste report is only 22 pages. The COMBAT SNAP report is about 30 or
so pages long.

Juvat

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >"The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26
> >replacement in April [1966]. An HRB-Singer 934-1B missile warning receiver
> >was installed in 62-4416 and test flown at the Sanders facility, which had a
> >Fan Song missile guidance simulator not available at Eglin.
>
> And there we were in June 1966 sitting on the ground at Eglin with the
> F-4C WWIV waiting for range time on the SADS and cancelling for rain
> when another site was available. Here I thought and was led to believe
> the Eglin SADS was the only one available..
>
> >The 934-1B
> >differed from the APR-26 in that it analyzed the modulation characteristics of
> >the C-band [i.e. radar L-band] guidance signal to differentiate between SA-2
> >missile activity and missile launch modes, while the APR-26 simply looked for
> >an abrupt amplitude increase. The HRB-Singer set performed well, but the Air
> >Force was already committed to a large APR-26 procurement and saw no
> >compelling reason to buy another system to perform the same function.
>
> Shame they didn't have to stand up before a couple hundred pilots and
> say we see no compelling reason to give you a better system that would
> give you more confidence and might save your life! Welcome to the
> realities of the Vietnam War..

At the time I'm sure the APR-26 seemed adequate, and they didn't realize its
shortcomings. If the APR-26 was already in low-rate production, it was probably
figured that getting something into action soonest was better than waiting for
something potentially better later. Jenkins describes a whole bunch of concurrent
programs and fits which they were experimenting with, and just getting some F-105F
Weasels completed and functional so they could test them was very difficult. There
were a lot of systems that were better on paper, but which proved difficult if not
impossible to make work in the time required. He also covers the APS-107 which was
rejected for the Wild Weasel II (F-100F) program and later considered as a
potential system (APS-107B internal for the F-105D along with the navy's ALQ-51
jammer (which later were installed in RF-101s), as well as the Bendix DPN-61
DF/homing system (the Az-el antennas) and various competing systems.

> >Only
> >after the Wild Weasel III F-105s were in combat was it learned that the
> >APR-26's design was based on possibly faulty intelligence regarding the
> >amplitude increase. This led to numerous incidents of flase lower
> >threat-level 'activity' indications when 'missile launch' should have been
> >displayed. The APR-26 was later modified to analyze the guidance signal and
> >the improved sets redesignated APR-37."
>
> The original story I heard in June 1966 at the APR-25/26 class at
> Keesler and later from the tech reps was the missile guidance signal
> was feed into a dummy load. That caused the Activity Light to come on.
> Then when they launched and switched to active guidance at a higher
> power the Launch Light came on. Another variation on that was they
> interrogated the missiles at low power before launch that gave the
> Activity and then went high power to guide giving Launch light.

The latter would seem to make more sense assuming that the VPADF were really
'playing the L-band' to make us think they'd launched when they hadn't. I wonder
if our receivers would be sensitive enough to detect a dummy load at the time --
after all, the whole point was to warm everything up without warning everyone in
the area that they were ready to go (like a radar in standby).


> No
> mention at all of how the missile was quided until I took the
> APR-36/37 factory course in 1968 at ATI/ITEK in Palo Alto, CA. Here
> they went into the guidance pulse train and what the APR-37 looked at.
> They talked like this was recent intel and here the info had been
> around for years.

<snip>

It may well have been recent. They only got the missile prox. fuse and some
guidance data in Feb. 1966, from a Firebee drone that they flew around trolling for
SAMs, relaying the data to an RB-47 just before the drone was destroyed. And then
we got our hands on complete SA-2 systems after the Six Day War.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:09:57 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >"A separate modification provided the capability to correlate a C-band missile
> >guidance signal received by the APR-26 to a specific E-F band signal displayed
> >on the APR-25 azimuth indicator."
>
> Here is one reference:
> Bauman Mod
> http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1998/AS/ctpn.html

Thanks.

> I can't confirm that is the scope display..

One would hope not;-)

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Tex Houston wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > This was separate from the QRC-317 SEE-SAMS/QRC-317A ALR-31, which was
> > eventually incorporated into the APR-25 ('SPOT SAM') and turned it into
> the
> > APR-36 (the 'centered in both beams' A/S light). Jenkins, further on his
> his
> > section on the Weasels, also seems to mention the same mod you call the
> > 'Bowman', although not by name. The description certainly fits:
> > Guy
> >
>
> I suspect it is not "Bowman" but "Bauman" as this sounds very much like the
> project he invented at Takhli about 1966-1967.

So it seems, given the link Bob found.

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>> >
>> >"The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26
>> >replacement in April [1966].
>>
>> Not to disparage Jenkins, who's done great research on the F-105, but
>> "potential replacement in April (1966)" doesn't track well with my
>> experience. I arrived at Korat in May of '66 and at that time the
>> APR-25/26 was just being initially installed in the operational jets.
>
>As noted below, this was the WWIII fit, and they were just starting procurement.

OK, WW III was the F-105F. And the elaboration that it was
pre-deployment of the system helps, but it still doesn't make sense to
be seeking a replacement before you've operationally employed the
already purchased equipment. Things were happening fast in EW at that
time, so maybe that's the excuse.

>>
>> I'm not a "squeaks and beeps" EW, but here's what I was taught about
>> the sequence for the SA-2. The initial TDU (Threat Display Unit) light
>> were for "Lo" indicating a low PRF (pulse recurrence frequency), as
>> you got lit up with both beams of the Fan Song (Az & El), you got a
>> "Hi" for high PRF.
>
>H'mm that seems a bit off. Normally, fire control sets search at a lower PRF, then
>track at a higher one.
>
>So, Low PRF would indicate general search mode, High PRF would indicate tracking
>_somebody_ (at shorter range). That at least would be the case with the APR-25.

About ten minutes after that post above, an aging synapse fired and I
recalled that 25/26 didn't really deal with Azimuth/Sector, but the Lo
PRF was search and the Hi PRF was switching to track mode.

>So, prior to the ALR-31/APR-36, you might be in one or both beams and getting High
>PRF, but not be in the center of the Fan Song sweep because it was actually
>targeting some other a/c close to the same angle between the radar and you, leading
>to unnecessary maneuvers and high pulse rates. You'd also pick up the L-band
>guidance signal, again without necessarily being the target.
>
>> When missile data upload was taking place, another
>> frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you
>> got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were
>> received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got
>> the "Launch" light.
>
>Right, the guidance used the C-band dish on the left of this picture (the E/F or
>G-band tracking antennas are the horizontal and vertical troughs):
>
>http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/fan_song2.jpg
>
> Here's what I'm talking about (again from the Air & Space article
>Bob pointed out):
>
>"As tactics were developed in the air, field modifications to the Wild Weasel
>systems continued on the ground. A key weakness of the equipment was that if
>several SAM sites were displayed on the scope and the light that signaled a launch
>was illuminated, there was no way to know which site had fired and from which
>direction the SAM was coming. "I heard the crews complaining about that," says
>Weldon Bauman, who in 1967 was a junior enlisted technician at Takhli. "---details snipped---

No ****! You bet we were complaining. It was a "good news/bad news"
kind of thing. We were glad the RHAW gave us info, but really wanted
more detail. Discrimination between radars in the saturated
environment of Pack VI was important and knowing where to look in a
split-second to acquire the missile visually was critical to survival.
>
>Thanks. BTW, in the case of say a two-ringer growing to a three, did the strobe
>extend in from the periphery, or out from the center? I've always assumed it was
>the latter (looking similar to a PPI display), but I've never seen a source I trust
>which says which it was.

You are correct. The "origin" of all strobes was the center of the
scope. The strobe extended outward in the direction indicated by the
integration of signal strength from the several antennae on the
aircraft skin. Lot of folks never really broke the code that the
length of strobe (1-ring, 3-ring, etc.) was signal strength not
proximity to the emitter. There was some correlation, but technically
it was strength not range.

In less saturated areas, we could often work a single Fan Song and get
station-passage, just like flying over a VOR. On the nose, on the
nose, then swing to the tail. Good way to find a likely spot to leave
some CBU.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

--snipped---


Guy,

Since I know you love all the techno details, have you gotten Anthony
Thornborough's book, "Iron Hand: Smashing the Enemy's Air Defenses"?

Great source with incredible detail. Better than Jenkins and
head/shoulders above Larry Davis' Squadron Signals soft-cover
mini-book, "Wiild Weasel".


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

[Buzzer]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 06:05:51 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>As noted below, this was the WWIII fit, and they were just starting procurement.
>The question was whether they'd confirm
>procurement of the APR-26 or go with the HRB-Singer set. Almost no sets of either
>type had yet been fitted to trials a/c, and only a few of the APR-25/-26/IR-133 to
>the F-100F WWs.

HRB-Singer set test Apr 66
F-105 weasel test flying Jan 66 Deployed May-Jun 66
F-4 weasel flying sometime before June 66
Didn't find out APR-26 might be faulty until after Jun 66..

Ok. They took a chance with the APR-26 since it was flying and ended
up being wrong..

It might have also been a maintenance thing keeping the 26 over the
Singer. Simple transistors against (maybe) multi-layer ic type boards
that would require extensive tech rep or depot support.

>H'mm that seems a bit off. Normally, fire control sets search at a lower PRF, then
>track at a higher one. FWIW, the first available site I could find credits Fan
>Song C/E with the following PRFs:
>
>PRF 828-1440 Search. 1656-2880 Trk.

Makes me wonder now. Did they "flip a switch" and double the prf? Or
did the prf double because the aircraft was in the box and two beams
at the same prf were hitting?

>"The Fan Song was one of the first electronic scanning radars--it directed its
>energy without having to move its antenna. "The way the Soviets built the Fan Song

Tech school memory - Lewis scanner. English name for soviet radar
scanning? English name for U.S. developed radar technique in late
40's-50's. Not further developed by U.S. because it was inefficient
use of power.

>Thanks. BTW, in the case of say a two-ringer growing to a three, did the strobe
>extend in from the periphery, or out from the center? I've always assumed it was
>the latter (looking similar to a PPI display), but I've never seen a source I trust
>which says which it was.

Center going out as you got closer to source.If I remember right on
the APR-25 a really strong signal would cause the signal to go to the
outer edge of the scope and curl back in a loop. Lots of strong
signals - lots of loops..

Factory schools on equipment were interesting. Fresh off the drawing
boards and the solder still cooling.<G>
APR-36/37
Student - What does that circuit do?
Instructor - I don't know.
Student - What does the engineer that designed it say?
Instructor - He can't remember..

[Ed Rasimus]

Buzzer > wrote:

>Center going out as you got closer to source.If I remember right on
>the APR-25 a really strong signal would cause the signal to go to the
>outer edge of the scope and curl back in a loop. Lots of strong
>signals - lots of loops..

See my previous regarding proximity vs signal strength. Sure, as you
get closer, you get a stronger signal, but the parameter was strength.

No looping. The strobe went out to the limit of the display, that's
all.


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

[Buzzer]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:12:58 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>Buzzer > wrote:
>
>>Center going out as you got closer to source.If I remember right on
>>the APR-25 a really strong signal would cause the signal to go to the
>>outer edge of the scope and curl back in a loop. Lots of strong
>>signals - lots of loops..
>
>See my previous regarding proximity vs signal strength. Sure, as you
>get closer, you get a stronger signal, but the parameter was strength.

Probably why I set the sensitivity of each freq band to x db that
would give y deflection. Instead of x number of yds from sam site
would give a certain deflection since not all sam sites put out the
same exact power?<G>

>No looping. The strobe went out to the limit of the display, that's
>all.

Must have looped on the bench due to the loopy technician.

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >> Guy Alcala > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"The Air Force also conducted a quick look evaluation of a potential APR-26
> >> >replacement in April [1966].
> >>
> >> Not to disparage Jenkins, who's done great research on the F-105, but
> >> "potential replacement in April (1966)" doesn't track well with my
> >> experience. I arrived at Korat in May of '66 and at that time the
> >> APR-25/26 was just being initially installed in the operational jets.
> >
> >As noted below, this was the WWIII fit, and they were just starting procurement.
>
> OK, WW III was the F-105F. And the elaboration that it was
> pre-deployment of the system helps, but it still doesn't make sense to
> be seeking a replacement before you've operationally employed the
> already purchased equipment. Things were happening fast in EW at that
> time, so maybe that's the excuse.

Yes, they had multiple systems in concurrent development, and were essentially trying everything.

<snip>

> >So, Low PRF would indicate general search mode, High PRF would indicate tracking
> >_somebody_ (at shorter range). That at least would be the case with the APR-25.
>
> About ten minutes after that post above, an aging synapse fired and I
> recalled that 25/26 didn't really deal with Azimuth/Sector, but the Lo
> PRF was search and the Hi PRF was switching to track mode.

Yeah, I thought you might be conjoining APR-25/-26 with -36/-37.


> >So, prior to the ALR-31/APR-36, you might be in one or both beams and getting High
> >PRF, but not be in the center of the Fan Song sweep because it was actually
> >targeting some other a/c close to the same angle between the radar and you, leading
> >to unnecessary maneuvers and high pulse rates. You'd also pick up the L-band
> >guidance signal, again without necessarily being the target.
> >
> >> When missile data upload was taking place, another
> >> frequency was employed (that's where an EW could tell you more) you
> >> got an "Activity" light and when command guidance signals were
> >> received, indicating control signals to the missile airborne, you got
> >> the "Launch" light.
> >
> >Right, the guidance used the C-band dish on the left of this picture (the E/F or
> >G-band tracking antennas are the horizontal and vertical troughs):
> >
> >http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/fan_song2.jpg
> >
> > Here's what I'm talking about (again from the Air & Space article
> >Bob pointed out):
> >
> >"As tactics were developed in the air, field modifications to the Wild Weasel
> >systems continued on the ground. A key weakness of the equipment was that if
> >several SAM sites were displayed on the scope and the light that signaled a launch
> >was illuminated, there was no way to know which site had fired and from which
> >direction the SAM was coming. "I heard the crews complaining about that," says
> >Weldon Bauman, who in 1967 was a junior enlisted technician at Takhli. "---details snipped---
>
> No ****! You bet we were complaining. It was a "good news/bad news"
> kind of thing. We were glad the RHAW gave us info, but really wanted
> more detail. Discrimination between radars in the saturated
> environment of Pack VI was important and knowing where to look in a
> split-second to acquire the missile visually was critical to survival.

One hopes they gave Bauman a DSM. Rare for enlisted, but not unknown. They gave one to Senior
Chief Radarman Nowell, the senior controller on U.S.S. Chicago in 1972 (aka "The Voice of Red
Crown"), for his controlling of 13 successful interceptions. Admittedly, he was only the second
navy enlisted man to be awarded one, but Bauman's work would seem to be as important. Googling I
see that he's an inductee of the Association of Old Crows Hall of Fame for "Missile
Warning/Launch Circuits."


> >Thanks. BTW, in the case of say a two-ringer growing to a three, did the strobe
> >extend in from the periphery, or out from the center? I've always assumed it was
> >the latter (looking similar to a PPI display), but I've never seen a source I trust
> >which says which it was.
>
> You are correct. The "origin" of all strobes was the center of the
> scope. The strobe extended outward in the direction indicated by the
> integration of signal strength from the several antennae on the
> aircraft skin. Lot of folks never really broke the code that the
> length of strobe (1-ring, 3-ring, etc.) was signal strength not
> proximity to the emitter. There was some correlation, but technically
> it was strength not range.

Thanks. I knew that that generation of RWRs indicated signal stength rather than range. What was
the problem with crews not being able to grok it? I assume they were told what the strobe length
represented, so was it a cognitive problem in combat, i.e the brain is used to seeing a vector
length represent distance, so they automatically reverted to that under pressure?


> In less saturated areas, we could often work a single Fan Song and get
> station-passage, just like flying over a VOR. On the nose, on the
> nose, then swing to the tail. Good way to find a likely spot to leave
> some CBU.

Better you than me, although flying directly overhead is probably fairly safe as you'd be inside
SA-2 minimum range. It's a damned good thing that they didn't have any shorter-ranged SAMs
(co-located with the SA-2s), or I fear you would have only been able to do this once, if that ;-)

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> --snipped---
>
> Guy,
>
> Since I know you love all the techno details, have you gotten Anthony
> Thornborough's book, "Iron Hand: Smashing the Enemy's Air Defenses"?
>
> Great source with incredible detail. Better than Jenkins and
> head/shoulders above Larry Davis' Squadron Signals soft-cover
> mini-book, "Wiild Weasel".

Been trying to find it through the library system, but no luck so far.
If that doesn't work, I'll just have to break down and buy it, but I try
to keep the size of my permanent library down to just the essential
references so I don't have to live outside. I'm a big Thornborough fan
anyway, although occasionally he gets some bad info. If he's more
detailed than Jenkins', who did the best job I've seen yet describing the
USAF Vietnam-era fighter RWR/ECM gear, it sounds like one of those must
haves.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:12:58 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
> wrote:
>
> >Buzzer > wrote:
> >
> >>Center going out as you got closer to source.If I remember right on
> >>the APR-25 a really strong signal would cause the signal to go to the
> >>outer edge of the scope and curl back in a loop. Lots of strong
> >>signals - lots of loops..
> >
> >See my previous regarding proximity vs signal strength. Sure, as you
> >get closer, you get a stronger signal, but the parameter was strength.
>
> Probably why I set the sensitivity of each freq band to x db that
> would give y deflection. Instead of x number of yds from sam site
> would give a certain deflection since not all sam sites put out the
> same exact power?<G>
>
> >No looping. The strobe went out to the limit of the display, that's
> >all.
>
> Must have looped on the bench due to the loopy technician.

I have a vague memory of seeing a photo or film of an APR-25 display
somewhere, which IIRR did loop. Maybe this was film of a bench test, and
you'd never get close enough to a site in flight for the signal strength to
be great enough for that to happen?

Guy

[Buzzer]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 07:06:15 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:


Are you registered here?
http://www.jedonline.com/default.asp
Quick Search apr-25
At the bottom of results
EW 101 1/1999

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 07:06:15 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> Are you registered here?
> http://www.jedonline.com/default.asp
> Quick Search apr-25
> At the bottom of results
> EW 101 1/1999

Apparently I haven't been there in quite awhile, as they
wouldn't accept my login and I had to register again.
Thanks for the cite.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Buzzer wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 06:05:51 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >H'mm that seems a bit off. Normally, fire control sets search at a lower PRF, then
> >track at a higher one. FWIW, the first available site I could find credits Fan
> >Song C/E with the following PRFs:
> >
> >PRF 828-1440 Search. 1656-2880 Trk.
>
> Makes me wonder now. Did they "flip a switch" and double the prf? Or
> did the prf double because the aircraft was in the box and two beams
> at the same prf were hitting?

<snip>

I imagine PRF changed automatically as soon as they started auto-tracking. Otherwise,
they could do so manually when jamming required manual track. The Fansong actually had
three guys to do manual tracking, one each for range, altitude and azimuth.

Guy

[Zajcevi]

Juvat > wrote in message >...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ivan
> blurted out:

:-)

> You're welcome!

Many thanks!

> >> I also have a copy of the Project CHECO report "COMBAT SNAP: AIM-9J
> >> Southeast Asia Introduction," but Guy addressed the issue for you.
> >
> >Would you mind posting some other details from these both reports?
>
> No problem...anything you're looking for, specifically? The Rivet
> Haste report is only 22 pages. The COMBAT SNAP report is about 30 or
> so pages long.
>

Hmm, ideally all those 52 pages will be fine. ;-)

But more seriously, I dont know what is in this reports included,
generaly I am looking for some technical descriptions and info about
operational use.

Cheers
Ivan

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Zajcevi) writes:
> Hello
>
> Many thanks for all answers here, I needed some time to sort
> everything what was writen here and I got some additional questions.
>
> Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
>>
>> 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). IFF interrogators were later added to the
>> APQ-100 and 109 at least, APX-76 IIRR.
>
> So the first APQ-72s and APQ-100s/109s were without any IFF systems?
> When they have been added?
> Was APX-76 used on F-4Js/Es, and also Combat Tree birds?
>
>> 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,
>
> Have I understand it correctly?
> A-A
> 1. B-scan - basic mode used for search
> 2. Lock-on - once was target acquired in B-scan, it was tracked in
> Lock-on and it also provided illuminating for AIM-7s

ALso known as an F-Scope. The pipper deflection is governed by
bearing rate. If the target is on a steady bearing, the dot's in the
middle, if it's moving in one or more axis, the dot moves to show it,
The amount of deflection of the dot is the rate of change. There's
also an Artificial Horizon bar, so's you don't fly into the ground
while sqinting at the scope, and a couple of concentric rings that
show you time to some range marker (Rocket fire for, say, an F-86D or
F-89, or the Max and Min rages that the interlock ciruits will allow
for Guided Missile firing, and how fast you're closing on the target.
Somewhere in there will be an antenna Az & El marker, too.
It sounds very complicated, but it was determined in the 1950s to be a
good way to get intercept info to a pilot.

Lock On, BTW, is when the radar is given a target at a particular
Azimuth, Elevation, and Range and told to follow it automatically.

> 3. Boresight - used during dogfights, generally radar looked at the
> same point like pipper. In another topis about F-4E some time ago
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote about some Auto Acq mode and his
> generations. Was Auto Acq submode of Boresight or it is only another
> designation the same mode?

Boresight is aligned with the gunsight pipper. Put the pipper on the
target, and, either the Guy In Back or, in some mods, the Pilot locks
on. With Auto Acq, the radar automatically starts tracking the
closest object on the pipper's sightline.

> 4. Gyro out - another one used in dogfights

> 5. TV - used only on F-4Es with TISEO
>
> Were there any other modes or submodes, or some differences dependable
> on F-4 version?
>
> A-G
> From another topis about F-4E byDweezil Dwarftosser:
> MAP-B - ?

A B-scan showing the ground map. This ends up being very at the edges
and bottom end of the scope, because angle measurements are translated
into the Y coordinate of the scope. Think Mercator Projection,
especially toward the poles.

> MAP-PPI - for offset bombing
A more usable map, where the angular deflection is actually angles,
giving a pie slice shaped display, in most airplanes. It's good for
Navigating, too.

> A/G - ranging for boms, rockets, guns

The radar tracks the reflection from the ground in front. With a
ground map, it's also possible to put a range/angle cirsor on a
prominent point a known bearing/distance fron the target and use that
offset as a reference for bombing calculations.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Buzzer]

On 12 Aug 2003 15:21:56 -0700, (Zajcevi) wrote:

>5. TV - used only on F-4Es with TISEO

1967 Walleye on F-4Ds out of Ubon, Thailand.
The debriefings I caught they blew a barge out of the water next to a
dock, and flew a bomb into a cave.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-62.htm
"Air Force began Walleye combat tests in Vietnam during August 1967
that achieved excellent results in good visibility against targets
that gave a strong contrast and were lightly defended."

[Zajcevi]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> > 3. Boresight - used during dogfights, generally radar looked at the
> > same point like pipper. In another topis about F-4E some time ago
> > Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote about some Auto Acq mode and his
> > generations. Was Auto Acq submode of Boresight or it is only another
> > designation the same mode?
>
> Boresight is aligned with the gunsight pipper. Put the pipper on the
> target, and, either the Guy In Back or, in some mods, the Pilot locks
> on. With Auto Acq, the radar automatically starts tracking the
> closest object on the pipper's sightline.

So boresight was a different mode than Auto Acq, or Auto Acq was
development of boresight (used and APQ-72/100/109) which was used on
APQ-120 and eventually APG-76?

APQ-72/100 radar dish had diameter 81 cm. Do you know these number for
the later types? F-4D/J had more bulbous nose than their earlier
version and this could be only becouse of larger diameter of radar
dish. APQ-120 on F-4E has on the other side smaller antenna.

Ivan

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Zajcevi) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> > 3. Boresight - used during dogfights, generally radar looked at the
>> > same point like pipper. In another topis about F-4E some time ago
>> > Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote about some Auto Acq mode and his
>> > generations. Was Auto Acq submode of Boresight or it is only another
>> > designation the same mode?
>>
>> Boresight is aligned with the gunsight pipper. Put the pipper on the
>> target, and, either the Guy In Back or, in some mods, the Pilot locks
>> on. With Auto Acq, the radar automatically starts tracking the
>> closest object on the pipper's sightline.
>
> So boresight was a different mode than Auto Acq, or Auto Acq was
> development of boresight (used and APQ-72/100/109) which was used on
> APQ-120 and eventually APG-76?

As I recall it, Auto Acq was a development of Boresight. If my
memory's correct, Boresight still required the WSO/RIO/Pilot tp place
the Range Gate over teh target and initiate tracking. (In the
early days of U.S.A.F. F-4 operations, bith seats were filled by rated
Pilots. The Guy in Fron was labelled as the Aircraft Commander, and
the Backseater was the Pilot. (Yes, it doesn't make any sense)
With Auto Acq, the pilot/Aircraft Commander held the pipper on the
target, and a single switch action would cause the radar to track the
nearest target.

>
> APQ-72/100 radar dish had diameter 81 cm. Do you know these number for
> the later types? F-4D/J had more bulbous nose than their earlier
> version and this could be only becouse of larger diameter of radar
> dish. APQ-120 on F-4E has on the other side smaller antenna.

The inital version of the Navy F-4, the F-4A, had a 24" (61cm)
antenna. This wasn't providing the acquisition range that was
specified, so the antenna was enlarged to 32" (81cm). This size was
used for the F-4B, F-4C, F-4D, and the F-4J. The F-4E's APQ-120 had a
smaller elliptical antenna roughly 18" X 27" (46 x 69 cm) With teh
smaller antenna, and the use of solid-state electronics in the radar
itself, there was enough volume freed up in the nose for the gun adn
its ammunition drum.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Zajcevi wrote:

> Hello
>
> Many thanks for all answers here, I needed some time to sort
> everything what was writen here and I got some additional questions.
>
> Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> >
> > 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). IFF interrogators were later added to the
> > APQ-100 and 109 at least, APX-76 IIRR.
>
> So the first APQ-72s and APQ-100s/109s were without any IFF systems?

Without IFF interrogators. They always had transponders.

>
> When they have been added?

Don't remember offhand, but will try and check.

> Was APX-76 used on F-4Js/Es, and also Combat Tree birds?

No idea. The diagrams of F-4E cockpits I've got show the IFF interrogator panel (in the RCP, left of the radar scope) as a
blank panel, but photos show that it is indeed for that purpose. Unfortunately, the label can't be seen. Photos of the
back cockpit of F-4Gs show a panel labeled APX-80 in the same spot.

> > 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,
>
> Have I understand it correctly?
> A-A
> 1. B-scan - basic mode used for search

Yes.

> 2. Lock-on - once was target acquired in B-scan, it was tracked in
> Lock-on and it also provided illuminating for AIM-7s

Yes, with both manual or auto-tracking available, in both range and/or azimuth/elevation.

> 3. Boresight - used during dogfights, generally radar looked at the
> same point like pipper.

Always aligned with the pipper, until lock-on achieved, then it would auto-track the target.

> In another topis about F-4E some time ago
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote about some Auto Acq mode and his
> generations. Was Auto Acq submode of Boresight or it is only another
> designation the same mode?

Auto-acq allowed an automatic acquisition and lock-on while in boresight or later, in CAA mode. Essentially, it eliminated
the need to manually position the range gate around the target.

> 4. Gyro out - another one used in dogfights

Yes.

> 5. TV - used only on F-4Es with TISEO

F-4Ds equipped for A/G PGM use had a separate TV, the Sony scope.

Got to go, I'll finish my reply later.

Guy


> Were there any other modes or submodes, or some differences dependable
> on F-4 version?
>
> A-G
> From another topis about F-4E byDweezil Dwarftosser:
> MAP-B - ?
> MAP-PPI - for offset bombing
> A/G - ranging for boms, rockets, guns
>
> Were there any others?
> How was called mode when adjustable range bombing strobe on F-4C was
> used?
> The some for additional modes for F-4D?
>
> > 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.
>
> APG-59, APQ-120 were both low/ high PRF, APQ-72/100/109 were only low
> PRF?
> Have APG-59 some different operational modes like USAF types?
>
> Regards
> Ivan

[Guy Alcala]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> Zajcevi wrote:

<snip previous post details>

> Got to go, I'll finish my reply later.
>
> Guy

And finishing the rest:

> > Were there any other modes or submodes, or some differences dependable
> > on F-4 version?
> >
> > A-G
> > From another topis about F-4E byDweezil Dwarftosser:
> > MAP-B - ?
> > MAP-PPI - for offset bombing
> > A/G - ranging for boms, rockets, guns

Already answered by others.

> >
> > Were there any others?
> > How was called mode when adjustable range bombing strobe on F-4C was
> > used?

That seems to be part of various nuclear bomb deliveries, rather than having a specific "mode" to itself. The bombing range
strobe appears when "MAP-PPI" mode is selected. Here's what the F-4C-34-1-1 says:

"Bombing Range Strobe. In PPI mode, the bombing range strobe is a series of straight lines which take the form of a true arc
of a circle. This strobe is ground adjustable to be displayed at a point between 0 to 50 miles. The bombing range strobe is
used as a range reference when bombing blind ground targets in conjunction with the sequential timer of the ARBCS [Guy note:
Attitude Reference and Bombing Computer Set]."

and elsewhere:

"The bombing range strobe is present with the MAP-PPI display. The strobe must be precisely adjusted (using ground test
equipment) so that the outer edge of the strobe represents a predetermined range at a given altitude AGL."

Since this is really just for nuke deliveries, info on using it doesn't appear in the -34-1-1, but in the confidential or
secret supplements (-34-1-1-1 or -34-1-1-2). Ed has described how the strobe was used.

>
> > The some for additional modes for F-4D?

Can't help there, except to say that the F-4D's WRCS could accept range and probably slant angle and even velocity inputs from
a ground radar lock, in Dive Toss mode. The F-4C was pretty much manual, loft or LADD.

> > > 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.
> >
> > APG-59, APQ-120 were both low/ high PRF, APQ-72/100/109 were only low
> > PRF?

No, the pulse radars (including APQ-120) were all low PRF. AFAIK ALL pulse radars are low PRF. Here's a (reasonably) concise
definition of the three PRF classes, from Stimson's "Introduction to Airborne Radar":

"Because of the tremendous impact the choice of PRF has on performance, it has become customary to classify airborne radars in
terms of the PRFs they employ. Recognizing that the regions of unambiguous range and and unambiguous doppler frequency are
very nearly mutually exclusive, three basic categories of PRF have been established: low, medium, and high."

"These are defined in terms not of the numerical value of the PRF per se, but of whether the PRF is such that the observed
ranges and/or doppler frequencies are ambiguous. While exact definitions vary, all are similar. The following is a widely
used, consistent set of definitions:"

"A low PRF is one for which the maximum range the radar is designed to handle lies in the first range zone. In the absence of
return from beyond this zone, _range_ is _un_ambiguous."

"A high PRF is one for which the observed doppler _frequencies_ of all significant targets are _un_ambiguous."

"A medium PRF is one for which neither of these conditions is satisfied. Both _range_ and _dopppler_ are _ambiguous_."

"Which category a particular PRF falls in depends to a considerable extent on the operating conditions. A PRF of 4 kilohertz
-- first range zone extending to 20 nautical miles -- would be 'low' if the maximum target range were _less_ than 20 nm. Yet
the same PRF, 4 KHz, would be 'medium' if the maximum range were greater than 20nm and the spread between maximum positive and
negative doppler frequencies exceeded 4 KHz."

"Similarly, a PRF of 20 KHz might be 'medium' for a 3-centimeter radar (X-band), yet 'high' for a 10-centimeter radar (S-band)
if, say, the radar's velocity were 200 knots and the velocity of the fastest target, 1,000 knots -- maximum closing rate 1,200
knots."

"In practice, not all of the possible PRFs within each category are used for any one radar band. at X-band, for example, PRFs
in the low category typically run from 250 to 4000 hertz; PRFs in the medium category are on the order of 10 to 20 kilohertz;
PRFs in the high category may range anywhere from 100 to 300 kilohertz."

To put this in perspective, the APQ-100 PRFs vary from 330 to 1,060 Hertz, depending on the mode and range selected. APG-59
was probably operating up around 200 kilohertz in Pulse Doppler mode.

> > Have APG-59 some different operational modes like USAF types?

I'm sure it does but I don't know what they are, other than a high PRF Pulse Doppler mode that the USAF types lack.

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>> Zajcevi wrote:
>
>> > How was called mode when adjustable range bombing strobe on F-4C was
>> > used?
>
>That seems to be part of various nuclear bomb deliveries, rather than having a specific "mode" to itself. The bombing range
>strobe appears when "MAP-PPI" mode is selected. Here's what the F-4C-34-1-1 says:
>
>"Bombing Range Strobe. In PPI mode, the bombing range strobe is a series of straight lines which take the form of a true arc
>of a circle. This strobe is ground adjustable to be displayed at a point between 0 to 50 miles. The bombing range strobe is
>used as a range reference when bombing blind ground targets in conjunction with the sequential timer of the ARBCS [Guy note:
>Attitude Reference and Bombing Computer Set]."
>
>and elsewhere:
>
>"The bombing range strobe is present with the MAP-PPI display. The strobe must be precisely adjusted (using ground test
>equipment) so that the outer edge of the strobe represents a predetermined range at a given altitude AGL."
>
>Since this is really just for nuke deliveries, info on using it doesn't appear in the -34-1-1, but in the confidential or
>secret supplements (-34-1-1-1 or -34-1-1-2). Ed has described how the strobe was used.
>
The nuke delivery in the F-4C was done with a two stage timer. You
would calculate the distance to the target at a pre-determined ground
speed from a known IP (initial point). This could be a visual
landmark, or a set distance from a ground radar return. If choosing a
VLD/RLD (Visual or Radar Laydown Delivery), you started the timer by
depressing the pickle button at the IP (when the radar bomb strobe
touches the target or IP radar blip) then flew straight ahead at fixed
speed. When the timer expires the blivet is released.

Or if lofting the bomb in a VLADD/RLADD (Visual or Radar Low-Angle
Drogue Delivery), two timer settings were used. Same IP definition,
either visual landmark or intersection of the bomb strobe and blip.
Pickle and hold, maintain airspeed until first timer setting elapses
then start four-G pull up straight ahead for second timer run (usually
about six or seven seconds). Bomb releases in climb at about 30-45
degrees of pitch and flies forward to the target in a ballistic arc. A
"drogue" chute deploys based on a bomb timer to stabilize the bomb and
slow descent until a radar ranging mechanism detonates the bomb at a
preset height above the ground (air burst rather than the ground
burst of the laydown delivery). The delivery aircraft completes a
wing-over and escapes about 90-135 degrees off the original run-in
course.

The strobe was screw-driver adjustable and was manually tweaked by the
WSO against the BIT (built-in test) range marks generated during radar
pre-flight checks. Usually five or four mile range was used in range
work.



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

[Zajcevi]

Hello

many thanks to everybody who came it this topic and have answered all my questions.
Great discussion

Best wishes
Ivan

[Scott R. Wilson]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Zajcevi wrote:
..
> > Was APX-76 used on F-4Js/Es, and also Combat Tree birds?
>
> No idea. The diagrams of F-4E cockpits I've got show the IFF interrogator
panel (in the RCP, left of the radar scope) as a
> blank panel, but photos show that it is indeed for that purpose.
Unfortunately, the label can't be seen. Photos of the
> back cockpit of F-4Gs show a panel labeled APX-80 in the same spot.

I can't answer when APX-76 was first put in Phantoms, nor whether Combat
Tree birds also had APX-76, but I worked on APX-76 in F-4Es in the early
1980s, along with APX-81. I believe APX-81 may have been "Combat Tree",
though it is also quite possible Combat Tree was an earlier generation
Soviet IFF Interrogator than APX-81. The "APX-80" control box at the WSO's
lower left panel by his left knee controlled both the APX-76 and APX-81. To
my knowledge there was never really any such thing as "APX-80" other than
what was printed on the control box. I always figured 80 was sort of an
average between 76 and 81, so that's why it was labeled as such on the
control box. APX -76 was a real piece of **** so far as reliability. As a
Comm-Nav avionics specialist, I spent more time working on APX-76 writeups
than all the other systems I worked on combined. The aircrews seemed really
love it when it worked, it helped them find targets much more easily than
just trying to get a radar paints.
Scott Wilson

[Smartace11]

>I can't answer when APX-76 was first put in Phantoms, nor whether Combat
>Tree birds also had APX-76, but I worked on APX-76 in F-4Es in the early
>1980s, along with APX-81. I believe APX-81 may have been "Combat Tree",
>though it is also quite possible Combat Tree was an earlier generation
>Soviet IFF Interrogator than APX-81. The "APX-80" control box at the WSO's
>lower left panel by his left knee controlled both the APX-76 and APX-81. To
>my knowledge there was never really any such thing as "APX-80" other than
>what was printed on the control box. I always figured 80 was sort of an
>average between 76 and 81, so that's why it was labeled as such on the
>control box. APX -76 was a real piece of **** so far as reliability. As a
>Comm-Nav avionics specialist, I spent more time working on APX-76 writeups
>than all the other systems I worked on combined. The aircrews seemed really
>love it when it worked, it helped them find targets much more easily than
>just trying to get a radar paints.
>Scott Wilson
>
>

I think that one of the earliest applications must have been the Misawa F-4Da
that belonged to the 475th TFW in 1971 or so and then transferred in 1972 to
the 3rd TFW at Kunsan. Combat Tree was indeed useful for such things as tanker
rendezvous weather joinups, and yes we used it to pick out hostile tracks at a
distance. It would locate a tanker at 150 miles whereas the radar would not
see one until less than 50 miles.

The 8 or so birds that were so equipped were sent to Thailand during the April
72 NVN offensive. One was immediately shot down after it arrived but the
others had some success. One of them with two MiG kills guards the main gate
at Wright-Patterson AFB today. Tail# is 550 but I forget the block number.
Probably 63-XXX

[Guy Alcala]

Smartace11 wrote:

> >I can't answer when APX-76 was first put in Phantoms, nor whether Combat
> >Tree birds also had APX-76, but I worked on APX-76 in F-4Es in the early
> >1980s, along with APX-81. I believe APX-81 may have been "Combat Tree",
> >though it is also quite possible Combat Tree was an earlier generation
> >Soviet IFF Interrogator than APX-81. The "APX-80" control box at the WSO's
> >lower left panel by his left knee controlled both the APX-76 and APX-81. To
> >my knowledge there was never really any such thing as "APX-80" other than
> >what was printed on the control box. I always figured 80 was sort of an
> >average between 76 and 81, so that's why it was labeled as such on the
> >control box. APX -76 was a real piece of **** so far as reliability. As a
> >Comm-Nav avionics specialist, I spent more time working on APX-76 writeups
> >than all the other systems I worked on combined. The aircrews seemed really
> >love it when it worked, it helped them find targets much more easily than
> >just trying to get a radar paints.
> >Scott Wilson
> >
> >
>
> I think that one of the earliest applications must have been the Misawa F-4Da
> that belonged to the 475th TFW in 1971 or so and then transferred in 1972 to
> the 3rd TFW at Kunsan. Combat Tree was indeed useful for such things as tanker
> rendezvous weather joinups, and yes we used it to pick out hostile tracks at a
> distance. It would locate a tanker at 150 miles whereas the radar would not
> see one until less than 50 miles.

I presume you meant APX-76 for tanker join-ups? Combat Tree wouldn't seem to be
useful for them, unless our KC-135s were carrying Soviet IFF systems ;-)


> The 8 or so birds that were so equipped were sent to Thailand during the April
> 72 NVN offensive. One was immediately shot down after it arrived but the
> others had some success. One of them with two MiG kills guards the main gate
> at Wright-Patterson AFB today. Tail# is 550 but I forget the block number.
> Probably 63-XXX

A FY-63 bird would be a C-model, and the full number would be 63-7550. The dual
MiG-kill C-model IN the museum is 64-0829, in which Robin Olds claimed two MiG-17s
on 20 May 1967:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf47.jpg

here's another shot of the same a/c outside:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf47.htm

66-7550 was the F-4D in which Dan Cherry/Jeff Feinstein got a MiG kill on 18 April
1972, but at least at that time it wasn't equipped with Combat Tree (per Red Baron,
which says that only Lead was Tree-equipped in that fight. Lead was Fred Olmsted
in Basco 01; Cherry was Basco 03). "and Kill Migs" says the tail code of Cherry's
a/c was 'PN', which would mean that the a/c was from the 405th at Clark.

Thornborough (via Alan Howarth) lists the first 8 Combat Tree birds as Block 29
D-models FY 65-0783 through -0785 and -0801, and FY 66-0232, -0237, -7463 and
-7482. He states that three of the 8 had been lost by June '72, and replacements
were sent between June and September. The total number sent is unknown, but
included 66-0239/-0240, -0267 through -0269, -0271, -7459, -7461, -7468, -7486 and
-7501.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

"Scott R. Wilson" wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Zajcevi wrote:
> .
> > > Was APX-76 used on F-4Js/Es, and also Combat Tree birds?
> >
> > No idea. The diagrams of F-4E cockpits I've got show the IFF interrogator
> panel (in the RCP, left of the radar scope) as a
> > blank panel, but photos show that it is indeed for that purpose.
> Unfortunately, the label can't be seen. Photos of the
> > back cockpit of F-4Gs show a panel labeled APX-80 in the same spot.
>
> I can't answer when APX-76 was first put in Phantoms, nor whether Combat
> Tree birds also had APX-76, but I worked on APX-76 in F-4Es in the early
> 1980s, along with APX-81. I believe APX-81 may have been "Combat Tree",
> though it is also quite possible Combat Tree was an earlier generation
> Soviet IFF Interrogator than APX-81. The "APX-80" control box at the WSO's
> lower left panel by his left knee controlled both the APX-76 and APX-81. To
> my knowledge there was never really any such thing as "APX-80" other than
> what was printed on the control box. I always figured 80 was sort of an
> average between 76 and 81, so that's why it was labeled as such on the
> control box.

<snip>

Thanks for the info, that clears up a lot of confusion about APX-80/-81.

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

(Smartace11) wrote:

>>
>>I presume you meant APX-76 for tanker join-ups? Combat Tree wouldn't seem to
>>be
>>useful for them, unless our KC-135s were carrying Soviet IFF systems
>
>At that time the whole system was called Combat Tree, as least by the aircrews.
> I was a dumb crew dog and just flew the things
>

I'll go with Guy on this one. The beacon mode of the E-model radar we
were using at Korat sure wasn't Tree. It worked on 100 and 200 mile
scope and was nice for finding your tanker. But it was strictly
"cooperative" target recognition.

I used to tweak Rod Bates, my back-seater after Linebacker II, to take
tanker "judy" as far out as he could. If he could get the tank to
squawk, he'd try to judy in the turn out of traffic. He got some
contacts at 125 to 150 miles and ran the whole intercept.

Of course, the beacon return on that long a range was a wide slash on
the scope. It got you going in the right general direction and you got
a refined return as you closed the range. By the time you got to skin
point you would be right on track.

Sorry bout this one, Steve, you're old memory is fading. CRS, I guess.



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

[Guy Alcala]

Smartace11 wrote:

<snip>

> >66-7550 was the F-4D in which Dan Cherry/Jeff Feinstein got a MiG kill on 18
> >April
> >1972, but at least at that time it wasn't equipped with Combat Tree (per Red
> >Baron,
> >which says that only Lead was Tree-equipped in that fight. Lead was Fred
> >Olmsted
>
> Again just a dumb crew doig here. My log indicate that bird had it installed
> at the Kun'.

Could be. There's a photo of Cherry with a big SEG in "And Kill MiGs," standing on
the a/c ladder of an F-4 with both a red star and the Combat Tree self-destruct
package placard on the splitter plate ("WARNING DESTRUCT SAFETY PIN MUST BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO EJECTION SEAT MAINTENANCE T.O. 1F-4D-2-3CL-1"), but there's no
way to tell what the tail number is. It could be a different a/c - the red star
doesn't appear to be brand new, but looks slightly weathered. Olmsted had gotten a
kill on 30 March, and 555th crews Lodge/Locher and Kittinger/Hodgdon had both
claimed MiGs at night while flying Lead in Combat Tree a/c, on 21 Feb and 1 March
respectively. Here's all the Red Baron III summary says:

"Event 11. 16 April 1972/1035H. Fargo: Four F-4Ds, Lead equipped with Combat
Tree, providing MiGCAP support for the first daylight strike in RP-6 in over 4
years, encountered four MiG-21s and destroyed two."

Cherry's (presumably unclassified) account in "And Kill MiGs" says that Olmsted's
WSO Stu Moss got contact at 20nm and was apparently the only a/c to get contact as
the range closed to 5nm, at which point "we picked them up visually," so it may
well have been a skin paint. In addition to Olmsted, Cherry states that the other
two ACs in 02 and 04 were Steve Cuthbert and Greg Crane.

FWIW, some years back I checked Alan Howarth's F-4D Combat Tree-equipped serial
number list against F-4D kill claims where either Red Baron or occasionally other
sources stated/indicated that the a/c had Combat Tree installed, and AFAIR all
matched up. Doesn't mean that an a/c or two might not have slipped through his
list, or that Red Baron is error-free. OTOH, there were supposedly only 8 Tree a/c
total in the 555th and 13th TFS' at the time, and Cherry says that the 432nd put up
five MiGCAP flights for the mission; given the usual non-operational a/c, typically
only the lead a/c in each flight would be TREE-equipped. If they had an extra then
the element lead would get the other Tree bird, and since Cherry was flying 03 it's
not impossible that he had one.

> I guess you could ask Jeff, a squadron mate at the time in the
> 80th.

Be happy to; could you give me an intro and/or his email, or ask him for me?

Guy

[Smartace11]

>I'll go with Guy on this one. The beacon mode of the E-model radar we
>were using at Korat sure wasn't Tree. It worked on 100 and 200 mile
>scope and was nice for finding your tanker. But it was strictly
>"cooperative" target recognition.

I never got any more than 100 mile skin paints on tankers in the F-4D radar and
that was rare, but you are right, the beacon mode would pick it up
a long ways out when it worked. I guess the tanks used it routinely on the
BUFF joinups. I usually let GCI do the vectoring until about 50 - 75 nm then
take when I got a skin paint, judy at 50-60 nm and turn the tanker at 35 nm.

Loved the 5 nm range indicator in the E - great for joinups in the weather at
nght.

[Smartace11]

>Be happy to; could you give me an intro and/or his email, or ask him for me?

I lost contact with him years back and have no idea where he is but I will look
him up in my 80th Headhunters roster - think I saw his name there. He and I
were in F-4 RTU, the 391st at Misawa and 80th at Kunsan together then he went
to Udorn and I went to Tahkli via Holloman.

[Smartace11]

>At the time of its MiG Kill 66-7550 was sporting the red fin flash and
>PN tail code of the 523d TFS from Clark. Did you guys give some of
>your jets to them as well as the 555th and 13th TFSs?
>
>Just curious...

I had left the Kun' a month before the planes were transferred (Apr 72) and got
to Holloman just in time to repack my bags for Tahkli. I was under the
impression that all of then went to the 555th but that is just an assumption.
The Combat Sage guys at
Clark could have had their hands on one for testing.
>Juvat (...F-16A era)
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Scott R. Wilson]

Radar beacon mode is a different animal altogether than the IFF
interrogators we've been talking about. The rendezvous beacon that tankers
carried and the one carried in F-4s (SST-181X, sometimes called "Skyspot
Beacon" though I don't know if that name's official) are interrogated by the
radar itself using a selected radar PW/PRF as I recall, not a separate
interrogator as with APX-76 or 81. The beacon in the F-4 had a code that
had to be preset before the flight by maintenance since it was dialed in on
the SST-181X itself, which was buried inside Door 19. I don't know what
kind of beacon the tankers carried or whether it was accessible in flight.
Lots of US military aircraft radars can interrogate rendezvous beacons.
Even the APN-59 radar in the C-130 could do it, though cargo Herks had no
IFF interrogation capability.
Scott Wilson

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> (Smartace11) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>I presume you meant APX-76 for tanker join-ups? Combat Tree wouldn't
seem to
> >>be
> >>useful for them, unless our KC-135s were carrying Soviet IFF systems
> >
> >At that time the whole system was called Combat Tree, as least by the
aircrews.
> > I was a dumb crew dog and just flew the things
> >
>
> I'll go with Guy on this one. The beacon mode of the E-model radar we
> were using at Korat sure wasn't Tree. It worked on 100 and 200 mile
> scope and was nice for finding your tanker. But it was strictly
> "cooperative" target recognition.
>
> I used to tweak Rod Bates, my back-seater after Linebacker II, to take
> tanker "judy" as far out as he could. If he could get the tank to
> squawk, he'd try to judy in the turn out of traffic. He got some
> contacts at 125 to 150 miles and ran the whole intercept.
>
> Of course, the beacon return on that long a range was a wide slash on
> the scope. It got you going in the right general direction and you got
> a refined return as you closed the range. By the time you got to skin
> point you would be right on track.
>
> Sorry bout this one, Steve, you're old memory is fading. CRS, I guess.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038

[Juvat]

I mentioned...

>>At the time of its MiG Kill 66-7550 was sporting the red fin flash and
>>PN tail code of the 523d TFS from Clark. Did you guys give some of
>>your jets to them as well as the 555th and 13th TFSs?

Smartace11 posted:

>I had left the Kun' a month before the planes were transferred (Apr 72) and got
>to Holloman just in time to repack my bags for Tahkli. I was under the
>impression that all of then went to the 555th but that is just an assumption.
>The Combat Sage guys at Clark could have had their hands on one for testing.

From the handi-dandi aircraft cards (microfiche) on file at
Maxwell...wing assignment and effect date for #66-7550

15th TFW 23 MAR 67,
4th TFW MAY 68,
432d TRW JUN 70,
405th FW MAY 71, (MiG-21 Kill 16 APR 72 13thTFS/432d TRW crew)
3d TFW NOV 72,
8th TFW SEP 74,
51st CW DEC 81,
465th TFS DEC 82,
89th TFS JAN 89,
ZW 31 OCT 89 (removed from service)

According to the maintenance accounting the jet went from Udorn to
Clark (May 71) then to Kunsan (Nov 72). But if your log says
otherwise...most confusing.

Juvat

[Juvat]

Guy Alcala posted:

>Just to help the confusion along, Thornborough shows the 523rd being transferred in
>its entirety from Clark (405th TFW) to Udorn (432nd control) under Constant Guard,
>on April 9th 1972.

Not responding simpy to be pedantic...it was the 405th FW (no Tactical
in the Lineage between Mar 1959 and Sep 1974) and the 523d TFS was
attached to the 432d TRW in TDY status (Constant Guard).

I was in high school at Clark and the father of one of my best buds
was the 523d CO (Farrell Sullivan). He was KIA over Hanoi on 27 Jun 72
while flying an E model belonging to the 308th TFS/31st TFW. I vividly
remember Mike telling me he was moving back to the States because his
Dad had just been shotdown by a SAM over Hanoi.

Juvat

[Michael Williamson]

Guy Alcala wrote:
>
>
> Wihtout knowing just how the F-4 was set up, I'd assume it was interrogating the
> tanker's IFF transponder rather than its radar (and not the SST-181X Sky Spot
> transponder either). All I can find is the F-4C/D Comm-Nav-Ident package listed
> as AN/ASQ-19, so the transponder is presumably included in that. The comparable
> sheet I have for the F-4E appears to have a misprint/typo in its listing for the
> same item, so it doesn't help.
>
>
>>The maintenance coding for interrogator responses (code IV, as I
>>recall) was done through a panel in the nose wheel well, not door 19
>>which was on the aircraft spine behind the R/C/P.
>
>
> FWIW, in Rosenkranz "Vipers in the Storm", he describes getting set to go on his
> first mission. The plane captain asks him what his Mode 2 is, and Rosenkranz
> gives him the four digit code which the chief then sets in the nosewheel well
> while Rosenkranz gets settled. Later, during the mission, Rosenkranz writes that
> the Mode 1 setting, 51, is due to change automatically to 43 at a certain time,
> and he calls up the appropriate page on his UFC to make sure it did and then
> makes a call to his flight members to remind them to check, because he says the
> F-15s will be interrogating Mode 1 as the strike egresses. I have no idea what
> Mode 4 is, other than knowing it exists and that the on/off switch is on the
> transponder control panel. Mode 3/A is the standard 4-digit ATC transponder,
> with Mode C being altitude encoding (at least in the civil world), but that's all
> handled in the cockpit.
>

Mode 1 is a 2 digit (octal, 0-7) military transponder signal which
is set in the cockpit. Actually, according to my -1, the second
digit is only 0-3, but these each appear twice on the rotary wheel.
Use in theater will vary, typically changing in 2, 4, or 6 hour
increments per theater instructions.

Mode 2 is set on the ground, and is typically not changed in flight.
In some aircraft/installation packages, this may be changed in flight,
but there is typically no need to do so.

Mode 3 and C are the same systems used by civil ATC. A 4 digit octal
code is selected by thumb wheel, pushbutton, or other entry system, and
the aircraft replies with this code. Mode C includes pressure altitude
return (uncorrected for altimeter setting, which is why ATC will often
query/update your altimeter setting if you are cruising at say, 300 ft
off altitude).

Mode 4 is an encrypted system, whereby interrogations will be ignored
unless they meet the encryption criteria stored in the mode 4 computer.
These are typically changed on a 24 hour cycle, and the system will hold
2 codes to allow for changeover which (typically) occurs at zulu day
changeover. In some aircraft, the computer may be loaded in flight,
but others can only do so on the ground. Most systems have warning
indications to tell the crew if the load is bad/missing, or if the
aircraft is being interrogated and not replying for some reason- a
useful warning, as the failure of this system could result in being
misidentified as a bad guy to someone with the ability to ruin your
day.

Mike

[Guy Alcala]

Juvat wrote:

> Guy Alcala posted:
>
> >Just to help the confusion along, Thornborough shows the 523rd being transferred in
> >its entirety from Clark (405th TFW) to Udorn (432nd control) under Constant Guard,
> >on April 9th 1972.
>
> Not responding simpy to be pedantic...it was the 405th FW (no Tactical
> in the Lineage between Mar 1959 and Sep 1974)

You're right, and so's Thornborough. My brain/fingers inserted the 'T' out of habit.
Was that Yeager's outfit at one point ('67 I guess, as he was the president of
Broughton's court-martial), flying B-57s in SVN?

> and the 523d TFS was
> attached to the 432d TRW in TDY status (Constant Guard).
>
> I was in high school at Clark and the father of one of my best buds
> was the 523d CO (Farrell Sullivan). He was KIA over Hanoi on 27 Jun 72
> while flying an E model belonging to the 308th TFS/31st TFW. I vividly
> remember Mike telling me he was moving back to the States because his
> Dad had just been shotdown by a SAM over Hanoi.

Not something you're likely to forget.

Guy

[Les Matheson]

But Ed, he is correct in that the beacon tracked by the F-4 radar was the
SST-181 and the F-4 (in fact I think all aircraft had one) had a SST-181
switch in the back seat that turned on the beacon for use by the Combat
Skyspot, or a tanker, or any other radar that could track it.

In the F-4, you had to select Beacon on the radar, which put the system in a
mode where it looked only for beacons and skin paints were not possible.
The trick in the backseat was to know when the "paint" was strong enough
that you could switch back to T/R and get a "contact".

In the AC-130A we had to remove the entire SST-181 transmitter before we
left for Desert Shield/Storm, because for some reason it would radiate at
low power even when turned off, and it was an EMCON hazard.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

[Ed Rasimus]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>> The tanker rendezvous system had the F-4 radar interrogating the
>> tanker radar to generate an enhanced return on the fighter's radar
>> display.
>
>Wihtout knowing just how the F-4 was set up, I'd assume it was interrogating the
>tanker's IFF transponder rather than its radar (and not the SST-181X Sky Spot
>transponder either).

A slip of the flying fingers typing lexicon. Yes, we interrogated the
tanker transponder, not the tanker's radar.



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

[Les Matheson]

In beacon mode in the F-4 we interrogated the tankers SST-181 beacon, not
his IFF beacon. The tanker had to turn on the SST-181 and sometimes we had
to request it.

If the F-4 was APX-80 equipped (if it was working) you could interrogate the
IFF also.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> >> The tanker rendezvous system had the F-4 radar interrogating the
> >> tanker radar to generate an enhanced return on the fighter's radar
> >> display.
> >
> >Wihtout knowing just how the F-4 was set up, I'd assume it was
interrogating the
> >tanker's IFF transponder rather than its radar (and not the SST-181X Sky
Spot
> >transponder either).
>
> A slip of the flying fingers typing lexicon. Yes, we interrogated the
> tanker transponder, not the tanker's radar.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038

[Smartace11]

>In the F-4, you had to select Beacon on the radar, which put the system in a
>mode where it looked only for beacons and skin paints were not possible.
>The trick in the backseat was to know when the "paint" was strong enough

Good put, best yet. I knew there was a reason I didn't care for it but had
long forgotten.

Steve

[Smartace11]

>According to the maintenance accounting the jet went from Udorn to
>Clark (May 71) then to Kunsan (Nov 72). But if your log says
>otherwise...most confusing.
>
>Juvat

Not sure that is all that unusual though.

We may have been loaned the plane as a part of the Combat Tree ops testing.
Like I said, about I knew was that I was supposed to fly whatever was on the
scheduling board. I need to go to the base and check the full tail number. I
live a mile from the post the bird now sits in front of the other side of
thebase from the Museum.

Ever wonder where the name Juvat came from?

[Smartace11]

I could well have been mistaken and some of those log pages are pretty hard to
read at times. What I mostly remember was that we had Tree birds for some time
at Misawa in the 475th which went to Kinsan to the 3rd TFW, later to become the
8th TFW. I was in the 391st in Misawa and reported into the 80th at Kinsan in
Feb 72. I left in Feb 72 and reported in to the 8th TFS at Holloman, departing
there TDY to Tahkli under Constant Guard inApr 72 Most of what I "know" about
when the Tree birds were transferred to SEA came from Dean Gushwa who followed
me to HAFB a month after I did. He told me how much the 80th guys were wining
about not getting to go and how one of the birds was shot down shortly after
arriving.

When I saw 550 on the post guarding Area A/C and AFMC HQ I recalled the tail
number, looked it up, and saw that I had flown it.

I make no pretenses about being a historian and I don't track tail numbers.
There are plenty of other guys out there doing that for me. You guys willhave
to figure it all out. NOr do I know much at all about the Tree program except
we flew them and input performance report at debrief. You guys gotta give me a
break, I was a Lt then LOL


>Smartace 11's comment about the a/c being transferred in April '72 is most
>confusing
>as at least the 8 initial Combat Tree birds were transferred earlier, because
>kills
>were scored by Combat Tree-equipped a/c in February (Lodge/Locher's first
>kill, at
>night) and March, and the first combat incident involving a Tree-equipped a/c
>that's
>mentioned in Red Baron occurred on 15 January 1972, with another on 17
>January.
>There were two Red Baron incidents in Dec. 1971 involving USAF F-4s; in
>neither of
>them are the a/c credited with having Combat Tree. FWIW, Thornborough says
>the
>transfers took place in Dec. '71/January '72, so the timing works out.
>Michel in
>"Clashes" says early in December, but doesn't specifically cite a source for
>that.
>
>Guy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

(Smartace11) wrote:


>
>Only used Combat Skyspot on the Koon-Ni range and then mostly during ORIs.
>Never used it in SEA. The antenna seemed to be mostly a good thing for the
>boomer to try to knock off on a bad day.
>
>Steve

A bit of confusion here, I suspect. The "towel rack" antenna on D's
that was a target for errant boomers related to LORAN. The Skyspot
beacon was initially a little hand held gadget about the size of a
pack of cigarettes.

When we did Skyspot (ptuiii!) in 105D's we were deemed incapable of
holding the little gizmo for the length of the run, and always had to
rendezvous with a "pathfinder" (ptuiiii!) such as a F-100F, B-66, or
(R)F-4.

Later, the tiny gadget was put in the R/C/P of the F-4--right console
forward. Had a toggle switch to turn it on or off.

Nomenclature is beyond my recollection.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

(Smartace11) wrote:

>>A slip of the flying fingers typing lexicon. Yes, we interrogated the
>>tanker transponder, not the tanker's radar.
>
>Senior moment Ed??? LOL

CRS, CRAFT, all those maladies.


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

[Smartace11]

>>Be happy to; could you give me an intro and/or his email, or ask him for me?
>
>I lost contact with him years back and have no idea where he is but I will
>look
>him up in my 80th Headhunters roster - think I saw his name there. He and I
>were in F-4 RTU, the 391st at Misawa and 80th at Kunsan together then he went
>to Udorn and I went to Tahkli via Holloman.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have a number for him but it is a 2001. I can pass it on along with his
address if you email me privately.

[Les Matheson]

No Ed, he was right about the antenna on the F-4. It was a round cylinder
about 11/4 inch dia. and about 3 1/2 tall on the spine near the refueling
receptacle. I never lost one, but have heard of them being smacked.

Better that than having the boom in your lap in the back seat. Happened to
a friend of mine, halfway between Korea and Alaska, the boomer popped the
boom right into his lap in the backseat. Had to ride the rest of the way
home below 10K and reeking of fuel that dripped on him.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> (Smartace11) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Only used Combat Skyspot on the Koon-Ni range and then mostly during
ORIs.
> >Never used it in SEA. The antenna seemed to be mostly a good thing for
the
> >boomer to try to knock off on a bad day.
> >
> >Steve
>
> A bit of confusion here, I suspect. The "towel rack" antenna on D's
> that was a target for errant boomers related to LORAN. The Skyspot
> beacon was initially a little hand held gadget about the size of a
> pack of cigarettes.
>
> When we did Skyspot (ptuiii!) in 105D's we were deemed incapable of
> holding the little gizmo for the length of the run, and always had to
> rendezvous with a "pathfinder" (ptuiiii!) such as a F-100F, B-66, or
> (R)F-4.
>
> Later, the tiny gadget was put in the R/C/P of the F-4--right console
> forward. Had a toggle switch to turn it on or off.
>
> Nomenclature is beyond my recollection.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:19:38 -0500, "Les Matheson" >
wrote:

>Had to ride the rest of the way
>home below 10K and reeking of fuel that dripped on him.


Surprised he wasnt reeking of something else lol.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Scott R. Wilson]

"Scott R. Wilson" > wrote in There were four sets of
> knobs on the face of the KY-532 to dial in Mode 2. All military
> transponders have the Mode 2 selection on the transponder itself.

I screwed that one up, there were four knobs, not sets of knobs.
Scott W.

[Guy alcala]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Buzzer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:12:58 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Buzzer > wrote:
> > >
> > >>Center going out as you got closer to source.If I remember right on
> > >>the APR-25 a really strong signal would cause the signal to go to the
> > >>outer edge of the scope and curl back in a loop. Lots of strong
> > >>signals - lots of loops..
> > >
> > >See my previous regarding proximity vs signal strength. Sure, as you
> > >get closer, you get a stronger signal, but the parameter was strength.
> >
> > Probably why I set the sensitivity of each freq band to x db that
> > would give y deflection. Instead of x number of yds from sam site
> > would give a certain deflection since not all sam sites put out the
> > same exact power?<G>
> >
> > >No looping. The strobe went out to the limit of the display, that's
> > >all.
> >
> > Must have looped on the bench due to the loopy technician.
>
> I have a vague memory of seeing a photo or film of an APR-25 display
> somewhere, which IIRR did loop. Maybe this was film of a bench test, and
> you'd never get close enough to a site in flight for the signal strength to
> be great enough for that to happen?

And now I have confirmation of APR-25 looping. I finally got my hands
on a copy of Thornborough's "Iron Hand", which is indeed chock full of
good stuff as Ed said. In it there's an account by an F-4CWW guy of a
mission on Night Four of LB II, which I had previously read in the 2nd
edition of Thornborough's "The Phantom Story", by Bill McLeod (and
which have been the vague memory that was nagging me, rather than a
photo or film):

"The EC-121 called us about a minute before the last B-52 was clear
and told us that we were the last a/c remaining in the target area,
and made it plain that they thought that we should get out of there.
As soon as I answered the EC-121, Red Crown came up on Guard and
announced 'SAM, SAM, SAM!', which was followed by Don's calm voice
from the rear cockpit saying 'We're the target'.

"The APR-25/-26 lit up with a classic full-system launch with a strobe
that went clear to the edge of the scope and part way back to the
center, the launch audio started screaming and two SAMs lifted off at
our eleven o'clock. I kicked my left rudder to put hte strobe and
missiles at twelve o'clock and fired both Shrikes at the guy, then
rolled into an inverted slice and pulled the a/c towards the ground
with at least 4-5g. As soon as the nose was well down, I rolled out
part of the bank and reacquired the two SAMs over the canopy rail."
<rest of account snipped>

I don't know if the APR-25 was adjusted incorrectly so that it was
oversensitive, or if it was operating correctly and they were really
that close/the signal was that strong. McLeod mentions that they'd
been orbiting at about 18,000 feet, and his account implies that they
were offset several miles from the site at the time the SA-2s were
fired.

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

(Guy alcala) wrote:

>And now I have confirmation of APR-25 looping. I finally got my hands
>on a copy of Thornborough's "Iron Hand", which is indeed chock full of
>good stuff as Ed said. In it there's an account by an F-4CWW guy of a
>mission on Night Four of LB II, which I had previously read in the 2nd
>edition of Thornborough's "The Phantom Story", by Bill McLeod (and
>which have been the vague memory that was nagging me, rather than a
>photo or film):
>
>"The EC-121 called us about a minute before the last B-52 was clear
>and told us that we were the last a/c remaining in the target area,
>and made it plain that they thought that we should get out of there.
>As soon as I answered the EC-121, Red Crown came up on Guard and
>announced 'SAM, SAM, SAM!', which was followed by Don's calm voice
>from the rear cockpit saying 'We're the target'.
>
>"The APR-25/-26 lit up with a classic full-system launch with a strobe
>that went clear to the edge of the scope and part way back to the
>center, the launch audio started screaming and two SAMs lifted off at
>our eleven o'clock. I kicked my left rudder to put hte strobe and
>missiles at twelve o'clock and fired both Shrikes at the guy, then
>rolled into an inverted slice and pulled the a/c towards the ground
>with at least 4-5g. As soon as the nose was well down, I rolled out
>part of the bank and reacquired the two SAMs over the canopy rail."
><rest of account snipped>
>
>I don't know if the APR-25 was adjusted incorrectly so that it was
>oversensitive, or if it was operating correctly and they were really
>that close/the signal was that strong. McLeod mentions that they'd
>been orbiting at about 18,000 feet, and his account implies that they
>were offset several miles from the site at the time the SA-2s were
>fired.

Had to look it up in Larry Davis' book "Wild Weasel" (Squadron Signal)
to check. It doesn't seem logical that the F-4C WW would still be
carrying APR-25/26 when the supported aircraft were all equipped with
APR 36/37 by Linebacker II. But, that's what the book says.

It wasn't till after the war was over that the birds got digital RWR.




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

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip>

> Had to look it up in Larry Davis' book "Wild Weasel" (Squadron Signal)
> to check. It doesn't seem logical that the F-4C WW would still be
> carrying APR-25/26 when the supported aircraft were all equipped with
> APR 36/37 by Linebacker II. But, that's what the book says.
>
> It wasn't till after the war was over that the birds got digital RWR.

Also mentioned in Thornborough. He says the F-4CWWs had APR-25/-26 plus
ER-142 during the war (the latter giving a considerable boost in
information over the base RWR/LWR), then ALR-46 (1973), and ALR-53 replaced
the ER-142 (chronology on pg. 146).

Guy

[Les Matheson]

The C model F-4 Weasel never was upgraded until we retired them in 1979.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> Had to look it up in Larry Davis' book "Wild Weasel" (Squadron Signal)
> to check. It doesn't seem logical that the F-4C WW would still be
> carrying APR-25/26 when the supported aircraft were all equipped with
> APR 36/37 by Linebacker II. But, that's what the book says.
>
> It wasn't till after the war was over that the birds got digital RWR.
>
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038

[funkraum]

> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
[...]
>Similarly there were a lot of guys in both cockpits who hadn't figured
>out that when we cruised down the Med, back and forth between Incirlik
>and Torrejon, that painting the area ahead in 200 mile scope could let
>you find your way quite nicely from coast out to Sardinia, to Sicily,
>to Crete, to Cyprus--all distinct island outlines.
>
>Yeah, the good ol' days. I sure miss it!!!
>

Great ! This must be volume three, subsequent to the 'Polyester Party
Suits' volume. I particularly look forward to the sections on the
culinary topography of the Med, plus the accompanying appendices "A
Fighter Pilot's Guide to Fine Chow" and "Radar Signatures of Michelin
Three-Star Restaurants".

[Ed Rasimus]

funkraum > wrote:

>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>[...]
>>Similarly there were a lot of guys in both cockpits who hadn't figured
>>out that when we cruised down the Med, back and forth between Incirlik
>>and Torrejon, that painting the area ahead in 200 mile scope could let
>>you find your way quite nicely from coast out to Sardinia, to Sicily,
>>to Crete, to Cyprus--all distinct island outlines.
>>
>>Yeah, the good ol' days. I sure miss it!!!
>>
>
>Great ! This must be volume three, subsequent to the 'Polyester Party
>Suits' volume. I particularly look forward to the sections on the
>culinary topography of the Med, plus the accompanying appendices "A
>Fighter Pilot's Guide to Fine Chow" and "Radar Signatures of Michelin
>Three-Star Restaurants".

That's why I stay in RAM. I wondered what the next project would be.
And, here it is...a combination of my favorite topics, flying
fighters, traveling, and eating good food. Gotta say, that I never
abused the public trust by taking an AF jet to a Michelin ***
restaurant. The valet parking guy could never figure out what to do
with it.


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

[Bill Silvey]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message

> Gotta say, that I never
> abused the public trust by taking an AF jet to a Michelin ***
> restaurant. The valet parking guy could never figure out what to do
> with it.

"Excuse me, sir? Before you go in, where's the emergency brake? Is it this
handle right he-"<CHOOF!>

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
funkraum > writes:
>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> [...]
>>Similarly there were a lot of guys in both cockpits who hadn't figured
>>out that when we cruised down the Med, back and forth between Incirlik
>>and Torrejon, that painting the area ahead in 200 mile scope could let
>>you find your way quite nicely from coast out to Sardinia, to Sicily,
>>to Crete, to Cyprus--all distinct island outlines.
>>
>>Yeah, the good ol' days. I sure miss it!!!
>>
>
> Great ! This must be volume three, subsequent to the 'Polyester Party
> Suits' volume. I particularly look forward to the sections on the
> culinary topography of the Med, plus the accompanying appendices "A
> Fighter Pilot's Guide to Fine Chow" and "Radar Signatures of Michelin
> Three-Star Restaurants".

And don't ever forget: "No flying over the Nudist Colony 15.213 nm,
151 deg. Magnetic."


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > writes:
> funkraum > wrote:
>
>>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>[...]
>>>Similarly there were a lot of guys in both cockpits who hadn't figured
>>>out that when we cruised down the Med, back and forth between Incirlik
>>>and Torrejon, that painting the area ahead in 200 mile scope could let
>>>you find your way quite nicely from coast out to Sardinia, to Sicily,
>>>to Crete, to Cyprus--all distinct island outlines.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the good ol' days. I sure miss it!!!
>>>
>>
>>Great ! This must be volume three, subsequent to the 'Polyester Party
>>Suits' volume. I particularly look forward to the sections on the
>>culinary topography of the Med, plus the accompanying appendices "A
>>Fighter Pilot's Guide to Fine Chow" and "Radar Signatures of Michelin
>>Three-Star Restaurants".
>
> That's why I stay in RAM. I wondered what the next project would be.
> And, here it is...a combination of my favorite topics, flying
> fighters, traveling, and eating good food. Gotta say, that I never
> abused the public trust by taking an AF jet to a Michelin ***
> restaurant. The valet parking guy could never figure out what to do
> with it.

As I Rember It, that dodn't stop a pair of USAREUR Cobra Crews from
stopping at a German McDonald's while returning from a border patrol
flight, back in the mid '80s.

(I think they'd have been OK if they hadn't tried using the Drive
Through Window)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mike Marron]

> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>funkraum > writes:
>>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>>>Similarly there were a lot of guys in both cockpits who hadn't figured
>>>out that when we cruised down the Med, back and forth between Incirlik
>>>and Torrejon, that painting the area ahead in 200 mile scope could let
>>>you find your way quite nicely from coast out to Sardinia, to Sicily,
>>>to Crete, to Cyprus--all distinct island outlines.

>>>Yeah, the good ol' days. I sure miss it!!!

>>Great ! This must be volume three, subsequent to the 'Polyester Party
>>Suits' volume. I particularly look forward to the sections on the
>>culinary topography of the Med, plus the accompanying appendices "A
>>Fighter Pilot's Guide to Fine Chow" and "Radar Signatures of Michelin
>>Three-Star Restaurants".

>And don't ever forget: "No flying over the Nudist Colony 15.213 nm,
>151 deg. Magnetic."

At .8 mach in his F-4, Ed wouldn't have much time to enjoy the sights
anyway. Down here, we've got nudist colonies galore and flying over
the babes to check out their, uh, tan lines, in my trike is pretty
much routine.

-Mike (girls gone wild) Marron

[funkraum]

> (Peter Stickney) wrote:

[...]
>As I Rember It, that dodn't stop a pair of USAREUR Cobra Crews from
>stopping at a German McDonald's while returning from a border patrol
>flight, back in the mid '80s.
>
>(I think they'd have been OK if they hadn't tried using the Drive
>Through Window)

Which reminds me of the cornerstone of Soviet Infantry doctrine:

"In defence, the most important thing is grub."