Re: Super Hornets: I don't get it

[Praetorian]

"David Moss" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> writes...
>
>> You don't send strikers in on their own. That's what EW is for. Did you
>> know
>> that there is a Wild Weasel version of the Super Hornet going into
>> production. (The EA18G "Growler") that will replace the EA6 Prowler and
>> the
>> (now retired) EF111 Raven.
>>
>> Just imagine, a EW platform with 100% in common with the rest of the
>> strike
>> package.
>
> Electronic Warfare packs emit radio signals designed to jam or confuse
> enemy radar. Notice the word "emit". Anything that emits RF can be
> triangulated using very basic equipment.

That's why you separate your Weasels from your strikers.

> Thats the downside of using EW: you let people know precisely where you
> are. Generally people leave EW
> packs

Hmmm, yeah, on-board EW kits, yes. I was talking about dedicated EW
aircraft. The ones with the really good EW voodoo.

> turned off unless they have an urgent and immediate need to jam or
> confuse. An incoming missile is about the only reason to turn it on.

Yeah, that's the self-defence EW kit. I'm talking about SEAD-type EW
platforms like the EA-18F Growler.

>> That still have to find their targets to kill them. F18F's are stealthier
>> than Su30's.
>
> But not as stealthy as 40 year old F111s.

An FA18 is less observable than a barn-door RCS F111? Since when?

> Or the SU24 for that matter.

I think you made a typo. Or did you actually mean the F111ski?

> The Russians plan to replace their SU24s with SU34s about the same time
> our F111s stop flying. They are currently in low number production.

Su24? The Cold War swing-wing ground attack aircraft? The F111ski?

> The SU34, which is not currently an option for anyone but Russia, is a
> true F111 replacement. It is a long range fighter bomber that allegedly
> has a semi stealthy shape

Doubtful. It doesn't exhibit much of the faceting you normally see on a low
RCS airframe.

> and low level terrain following capability.

You do realise that terrain following is a good ground-based radar counter
measure, but not so good against a decent look-down radar on say....
Wedgetail?


--
"Don't believe everything you think".

[David Moss]

In article >,
writes...

> You do realise that terrain following is a good ground-based radar counter
> measure, but not so good against a decent look-down radar on say....
> Wedgetail?

Do the Indonesians have a wedgetail?

BTW low level is more than a game of hide and seek. Once you get down
among the valleys and trees its damned difficult to hit you even if they
do detect you. They reckon there are only 3 US aircraft with much chance
of success against a really well defended target today. One of them is
the F111. We aren't getting either of the others.

DM

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:11:24 GMT, "Praetorian"
> wrote:

>"David Moss" > wrote in message
.. .
>> In article >,
>> writes...
>>
>>> You don't send strikers in on their own. That's what EW is for. Did you
>>> know that there is a Wild Weasel version of the Super Hornet going into
>>> production. (The EA18G "Growler") that will replace the EA6 Prowler and
>>> the (now retired) EF111 Raven.

Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT
jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.
>>>
>>> Just imagine, a EW platform with 100% in common with the rest of the
>>> strike package.

Why? No real benefit. Different mission, different weapons, different
supply chain, different training, different profile, different
tactics. All you really need is airfield and tanker compatibility.
>>
>> Electronic Warfare packs emit radio signals designed to jam or confuse
>> enemy radar. Notice the word "emit". Anything that emits RF can be
>> triangulated using very basic equipment.
>
>That's why you separate your Weasels from your strikers.

That's why EW aircraft aren't Weasels.
>
>> Thats the downside of using EW: you let people know precisely where you
>> are. Generally people leave EW
>> packs
>
>Hmmm, yeah, on-board EW kits, yes. I was talking about dedicated EW
>aircraft. The ones with the really good EW voodoo.

Why do you need high-power broadband blasting when you can be stealthy
and only need to confuse the defense when it's in end-game? Big
dedicated EW blasters are SOOOO yesterday.
>
>> The SU34, which is not currently an option for anyone but Russia, is a
>> true F111 replacement. It is a long range fighter bomber that allegedly
>> has a semi stealthy shape
>
>Doubtful. It doesn't exhibit much of the faceting you normally see on a low
>RCS airframe.

Not much faceting on B-2....or F-22. Faceting was the first solution.
Compound curves were too difficult to machine consistently when the
F-117 was designed. Technology evolved.
>
>> and low level terrain following capability.
>
>You do realise that terrain following is a good ground-based radar counter
>measure, but not so good against a decent look-down radar on say....
>Wedgetail?

Pulse doppler radars have provided excellent look-down/shoot down
since the late '70s. Ground clutter for an airborne platform simply
does not exist.

I learned that very impressively one day while tooling down the New
Mexico desert at 75' and 500 knots with one wing-tip nestled against
Mockingbird Ridge for vertical shielding enroute to a target. Got
nailed by a pair of F-15s that had me locked for the last fifteen
miles.

Ed Rasimus
Society of Wild Weasels #2488

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

[Mike Kanze]

Ed,

>Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.

Small point, but IIRC the current EA-6B is HARM-equipped/capable. That would make it a "weasel," n'est-ce pas?

True that in its very early deployments (very end of the VN era) the EA-6B Prowler had no offensive capability. At that time, the "Weasel" role ("Iron Hand" to the VN era US Navy) was performed for carrier-based airwings by the SHRIKE and Standard ARM equipped A-6B.

--
Mike Kanze

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."

- Cynical comment posted in Revolution Books, New York City



"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:11:24 GMT, "Praetorian"
> wrote:

>"David Moss" > wrote in message
.. .
>> In article >,
>> writes...
>>
>>> You don't send strikers in on their own. That's what EW is for. Did you
>>> know that there is a Wild Weasel version of the Super Hornet going into
>>> production. (The EA18G "Growler") that will replace the EA6 Prowler and
>>> the (now retired) EF111 Raven.

Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT
jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.
>>>
[rest snipped]

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

Growler is supposed to be HARM equipped also
"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message . ..
Ed,

>Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.

Small point, but IIRC the current EA-6B is HARM-equipped/capable. That would make it a "weasel," n'est-ce pas?

True that in its very early deployments (very end of the VN era) the EA-6B Prowler had no offensive capability. At that time, the "Weasel" role ("Iron Hand" to the VN era US Navy) was performed for carrier-based airwings by the SHRIKE and Standard ARM equipped A-6B.

--
Mike Kanze

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."

- Cynical comment posted in Revolution Books, New York City



"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:11:24 GMT, "Praetorian"
> wrote:

>"David Moss" > wrote in message
.. .
>> In article >,
>> writes...
>>
>>> You don't send strikers in on their own. That's what EW is for. Did you
>>> know that there is a Wild Weasel version of the Super Hornet going into
>>> production. (The EA18G "Growler") that will replace the EA6 Prowler and
>>> the (now retired) EF111 Raven.

Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT
jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.
>>>
[rest snipped]

[Praetorian]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:11:24 GMT, "Praetorian"
> > wrote:
>
>>"David Moss" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> In article >,
>>> writes...
>>>
>>>> You don't send strikers in on their own. That's what EW is for. Did you
>>>> know that there is a Wild Weasel version of the Super Hornet going into
>>>> production. (The EA18G "Growler") that will replace the EA6 Prowler and
>>>> the (now retired) EF111 Raven.
>
> Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT
> jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.

True enough. I'm being a bit loose with the terminologies for the benefit of
the lowest common denominators.

>>>>
>>>> Just imagine, a EW platform with 100% in common with the rest of the
>>>> strike package.
>
> Why?

Because small Air Force's can't afford multiple airframe types.

> No real benefit. Different mission, different weapons, different
> supply chain, different training, different profile, different
> tactics. All you really need is airfield and tanker compatibility.
>>>
>>> Electronic Warfare packs emit radio signals designed to jam or confuse
>>> enemy radar. Notice the word "emit". Anything that emits RF can be
>>> triangulated using very basic equipment.
>>
>>That's why you separate your Weasels from your strikers.
>
> That's why EW aircraft aren't Weasels.
>>
>>> Thats the downside of using EW: you let people know precisely where you
>>> are. Generally people leave EW
>>> packs
>>
>>Hmmm, yeah, on-board EW kits, yes. I was talking about dedicated EW
>>aircraft. The ones with the really good EW voodoo.
>
> Why do you need high-power broadband blasting when you can be stealthy
> and only need to confuse the defense when it's in end-game? Big
> dedicated EW blasters are SOOOO yesterday.
>>
>>> The SU34, which is not currently an option for anyone but Russia, is a
>>> true F111 replacement. It is a long range fighter bomber that allegedly
>>> has a semi stealthy shape
>>
>>Doubtful. It doesn't exhibit much of the faceting you normally see on a
>>low
>>RCS airframe.
>
> Not much faceting on B-2

Seen the intakes and bomb bay doors?

>....or F-22.

See above.


--
"Don't believe everything you think".

[Kwyjibo]

"Praetorian" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:11:24 GMT, "Praetorian"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"David Moss" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>> In article >,
>>>> writes...
>>>>
>>>>> You don't send strikers in on their own. That's what EW is for. Did
>>>>> you
>>>>> know that there is a Wild Weasel version of the Super Hornet going
>>>>> into
>>>>> production. (The EA18G "Growler") that will replace the EA6 Prowler
>>>>> and
>>>>> the (now retired) EF111 Raven.
>>
>> Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT
>> jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.
>
> True enough. I'm being a bit loose with the terminologies for the benefit
> of the lowest common denominators.


You're dumbing things down so YOU can understand them??
Nice one Brash.

--
Kwyj.

[David Moss]

In article >,
writes...

> Pulse doppler radars have provided excellent look-down/shoot down
> since the late '70s. Ground clutter for an airborne platform simply
> does not exist.
>
> I learned that very impressively one day while tooling down the New
> Mexico desert at 75' and 500 knots with one wing-tip nestled against
> Mockingbird Ridge for vertical shielding enroute to a target. Got
> nailed by a pair of F-15s that had me locked for the last fifteen
> miles.

What were your Knucks doing while you were getting nailed?
I realise weasels like to hunt alone, but pigs usually like a bit of top
cover when they go sneaking around near the treetops.

DM

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:18:11 GMT, David Moss
> wrote:

>In article >,
writes...
>
>> Pulse doppler radars have provided excellent look-down/shoot down
>> since the late '70s. Ground clutter for an airborne platform simply
>> does not exist.
>>
>> I learned that very impressively one day while tooling down the New
>> Mexico desert at 75' and 500 knots with one wing-tip nestled against
>> Mockingbird Ridge for vertical shielding enroute to a target. Got
>> nailed by a pair of F-15s that had me locked for the last fifteen
>> miles.
>
>What were your Knucks doing while you were getting nailed?
>I realise weasels like to hunt alone, but pigs usually like a bit of top
>cover when they go sneaking around near the treetops.
>
>DM

I was leading a pair of AT-38s heading to a target in Red Rio range.
No weaseling go on there. We were operating in trail so that we could
maintain as close as possible to the terrain masking of the ridge.

Gotta say that if an F-15A flown by a low-time driver can pick up the
little RCS of a head-on Talon under those conditions you'd be foolish
to depend on low altitude or terrain masking to survive in the modern
environment.

Lots of development since those days.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Typhoon502]

On Nov 7, 7:27 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> Ed,
>
> >Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.
>
> Small point, but IIRC the current EA-6B is HARM-equipped/capable. That would make it a "weasel," n'est-ce pas?

I think it's debatable..."Wild Weasel" to me is more about tactics
than what weapon is loaded. I can't imagine any Prowler pilot trying
to tease a SAM site into going live and hoping he can stuff a HARM
down the beam before they get a missile off. Growlers probably won't
be much more daredevilly even with the improved agility.

[Mike Kanze]

Ed,

Having been out of the cockpit about three decades, I really can't say whether today's Prowler community "weasels" in the manner you describe. I can say though that trolling for SA-2s - including FAN SONG lock-on/high PRF indications and missile launch - were a part of the A-6B Intruder community's "job description" throughout the B's deployment during the VN conflict.

The A-6B was strictly a SAM hunter and not used for full-system night/IMC bombing like the A-6A. Each deploying A-6 squadron carried a mixed bag of 10 - 12 A-6As, usually 3 A-6Bs, and (later in the VN war) three or four KA-6Ds. The A-6B was a stopgap measure, cheaper than the Prowler, and only carried a crew of two. The B/N was strictly a weaponeer and not any kind of ECM guru, so losing a B and/or its crew did not entail as much "intelligence loss" risk as losing a Prowler. Also, at that time (1972) the Prowler was brand new and relatively dear. Add to that the then obvious winding down of the VN war and the fear of components from a pod or the Prowler itself falling into NVN/Soviet hands - and the reluctance to send Prowlers feet dry is understandable.

--
Mike Kanze

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."

- Cynical comment posted in Revolution Books, New York City


"Typhoon502" > wrote in message oups.com...
On Nov 7, 7:27 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> Ed,
>
> >Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.
>
> Small point, but IIRC the current EA-6B is HARM-equipped/capable. That would make it a "weasel," n'est-ce pas?

I think it's debatable..."Wild Weasel" to me is more about tactics
than what weapon is loaded. I can't imagine any Prowler pilot trying
to tease a SAM site into going live and hoping he can stuff a HARM
down the beam before they get a missile off. Growlers probably won't
be much more daredevilly even with the improved agility.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:08:07 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Ed,
>
>Having been out of the cockpit about three decades, I really can't say whether today's Prowler community "weasels" in the manner you describe. I can say though that trolling for SA-2s - including FAN SONG lock-on/high PRF indications and missile launch - were a part of the A-6B Intruder community's "job description" throughout the B's deployment during the VN conflict.
>
>The A-6B was strictly a SAM hunter and not used for full-system night/IMC bombing like the A-6A. Each deploying A-6 squadron carried a mixed bag of 10 - 12 A-6As, usually 3 A-6Bs, and (later in the VN war) three or four KA-6Ds. The A-6B was a stopgap measure, cheaper than the Prowler, and only carried a crew of two. The B/N was strictly a weaponeer and not any kind of ECM guru, so losing a B and/or its crew did not entail as much "intelligence loss" risk as losing a Prowler. Also, at that time (1972) the Prowler was brand new and relatively dear. Add to that the then obvious winding down of the VN war and the fear of components from a pod or the Prowler itself falling into NVN/Soviet hands - and the reluctance to send Prowlers feet dry is understandable.

I had that same reluctance, but they made me go anyway!

Worked over the years as a partner with F-100F Weasels and F-105F
Weasels flying the F-105D model during Rolling Thunder and then during
Linbebacker I/II flew the F-4E as the "killer" element with the
F-105G. Got a couple of trips with an F-4C Weasel but they didn't have
the first class sensors that the 105G did. Never got to fly with an
F-4G, but by that time the mission had evolved to pretty much a
Weasel-only tactic without the ground-pounder element to kill the
detected site.


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

[Mike Kanze]

Ed,

>I had that same reluctance, but they made me go anyway!

Likely for the same reason we A-6B guys had to.

IIRC, the Prowler cost ~$30 million a copy and each of its pods (usually carried 4) were about $1 million (1972 dollars). The crew consisted of 1 stick (~$175 thousand training cost) and 3 ECMOs (~$125 thousand each to train).

By contrast, the A-6Bs were all converted A-6As, so their incremental additional cost to the Gummint was pretty low and they were flown by a crew of 2 already tasked and trained for other work, who were then given the equivalent of about 2 weeks OJT on the mysteries of the B. Not an ideal solution, but a damn cost effective one.

The A-6E TRAM (which I never knew) combined the capabilities of the A and B, and incorporated the system upgrades that were piloted in the 12 A-6C models. The E became the Navy's all-purpose, all-wx attack platform, including the SAM hunting ability. The EA-6B gained HARM capability about the time the A-6 community was disestablished, and (I suspect) quite likely for that very reason.

Sidebar: Watching all 4 crew shell out of a Prowler in extremis is a bit like watching the 82nd airborne leave for work. Seats and chutes all over the place all at once. Especially colorful off a "cold" catapult shot.

--
Mike Kanze

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."

- Cynical comment posted in Revolution Books, New York City


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:08:07 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Ed,
>
>Having been out of the cockpit about three decades, I really can't say whether today's Prowler community "weasels" in the manner you describe. I can say though that trolling for SA-2s - including FAN SONG lock-on/high PRF indications and missile launch - were a part of the A-6B Intruder community's "job description" throughout the B's deployment during the VN conflict.
>
>The A-6B was strictly a SAM hunter and not used for full-system night/IMC bombing like the A-6A. Each deploying A-6 squadron carried a mixed bag of 10 - 12 A-6As, usually 3 A-6Bs, and (later in the VN war) three or four KA-6Ds. The A-6B was a stopgap measure, cheaper than the Prowler, and only carried a crew of two. The B/N was strictly a weaponeer and not any kind of ECM guru, so losing a B and/or its crew did not entail as much "intelligence loss" risk as losing a Prowler. Also, at that time (1972) the Prowler was brand new and relatively dear. Add to that the then obvious winding down of the VN war and the fear of components from a pod or the Prowler itself falling into NVN/Soviet hands - and the reluctance to send Prowlers feet dry is understandable.

I had that same reluctance, but they made me go anyway!

Worked over the years as a partner with F-100F Weasels and F-105F
Weasels flying the F-105D model during Rolling Thunder and then during
Linbebacker I/II flew the F-4E as the "killer" element with the
F-105G. Got a couple of trips with an F-4C Weasel but they didn't have
the first class sensors that the 105G did. Never got to fly with an
F-4G, but by that time the mission had evolved to pretty much a
Weasel-only tactic without the ground-pounder element to kill the
detected site.


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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Mike Kanze
> writes
>Sidebar: Watching all 4 crew shell out of a Prowler in extremis is a bit like
>watching the 82nd airborne leave for work. Seats and chutes all over the
>place all at once. Especially colorful off a "cold" catapult shot.

Sounds... lively. I hope all four were recovered in usable condition?

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Mike Kanze]

Paul,

>Sounds... lively. I hope all four were recovered in usable condition?

In the one instance I observed (a very brief Naval Safety Center video clip of a cold cat shot off one of a carrier's waist cats) it appeared that all four souls were recovered successfully, although I suspect the helo crew was really pumping to do so. They may have had help from the planeguard destroyer's motor whaleboat, and it wouldn't surprise me if one or two of the crew came down "dry" on the deck after a swing in the straps. None of the aftermath was visible on the clip.

A very hairy situation, with maybe about 5 seconds from the crew's "shell out" decision until the bird hit the briny blue. Also quite a challenge for all of the rescuers to keep accurate count of seats, chutes, and souls, especially including where each soul finally lands.

--
Mike Kanze

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."

- Cynical comment posted in Revolution Books, New York City


"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message ...
In message >, Mike Kanze
> writes
>Sidebar: Watching all 4 crew shell out of a Prowler in extremis is a bit like
>watching the 82nd airborne leave for work. Seats and chutes all over the
>place all at once. Especially colorful off a "cold" catapult shot.

Sounds... lively. I hope all four were recovered in usable condition?

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[John Carrier]

I think you're a bit off in training cost. Even in 1972, by the time you get a guy through the TRACOM and the RAG it was over a mil a copy. These days? It probably costs that much in fuel!

R / John
"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message . ..
Ed,

>I had that same reluctance, but they made me go anyway!

Likely for the same reason we A-6B guys had to.

IIRC, the Prowler cost ~$30 million a copy and each of its pods (usually carried 4) were about $1 million (1972 dollars). The crew consisted of 1 stick (~$175 thousand training cost) and 3 ECMOs (~$125 thousand each to train).

By contrast, the A-6Bs were all converted A-6As, so their incremental additional cost to the Gummint was pretty low and they were flown by a crew of 2 already tasked and trained for other work, who were then given the equivalent of about 2 weeks OJT on the mysteries of the B. Not an ideal solution, but a damn cost effective one.

The A-6E TRAM (which I never knew) combined the capabilities of the A and B, and incorporated the system upgrades that were piloted in the 12 A-6C models. The E became the Navy's all-purpose, all-wx attack platform, including the SAM hunting ability. The EA-6B gained HARM capability about the time the A-6 community was disestablished, and (I suspect) quite likely for that very reason.

Sidebar: Watching all 4 crew shell out of a Prowler in extremis is a bit like watching the 82nd airborne leave for work. Seats and chutes all over the place all at once. Especially colorful off a "cold" catapult shot.

--
Mike Kanze

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."

- Cynical comment posted in Revolution Books, New York City


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:08:07 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Ed,
>
>Having been out of the cockpit about three decades, I really can't say whether today's Prowler community "weasels" in the manner you describe. I can say though that trolling for SA-2s - including FAN SONG lock-on/high PRF indications and missile launch - were a part of the A-6B Intruder community's "job description" throughout the B's deployment during the VN conflict.
>
>The A-6B was strictly a SAM hunter and not used for full-system night/IMC bombing like the A-6A. Each deploying A-6 squadron carried a mixed bag of 10 - 12 A-6As, usually 3 A-6Bs, and (later in the VN war) three or four KA-6Ds. The A-6B was a stopgap measure, cheaper than the Prowler, and only carried a crew of two. The B/N was strictly a weaponeer and not any kind of ECM guru, so losing a B and/or its crew did not entail as much "intelligence loss" risk as losing a Prowler. Also, at that time (1972) the Prowler was brand new and relatively dear. Add to that the then obvious winding down of the VN war and the fear of components from a pod or the Prowler itself falling into NVN/Soviet hands - and the reluctance to send Prowlers feet dry is understandable.

I had that same reluctance, but they made me go anyway!

Worked over the years as a partner with F-100F Weasels and F-105F
Weasels flying the F-105D model during Rolling Thunder and then during
Linbebacker I/II flew the F-4E as the "killer" element with the
F-105G. Got a couple of trips with an F-4C Weasel but they didn't have
the first class sensors that the 105G did. Never got to fly with an
F-4G, but by that time the mission had evolved to pretty much a
Weasel-only tactic without the ground-pounder element to kill the
detected site.


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

[Praetorian]

"Kwyjibo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Praetorian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message

>>> Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT
>>> jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.
>>
>> True enough. I'm being a bit loose with the terminologies for the benefit
>> of the lowest common denominators.
>
>
> You're dumbing things down so YOU can understand them??
> Nice one Brash.

He might think so. But you'd have to ask him, not me.


--
"Don't believe everything you think".

>
> --
> Kwyj.
>