To Steal an F-86

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:

"Smithsonian Air and Space" has an interesting article describing Soviet
attempts to get their hands on an F-86 during the Korean War.

As an addendum, the US of couse badly wanted a MiG-15, and eventually got
one flown over to it by a defecting NK pilot ($100K bonus for the pilot).

My father flew the MiG to the US via Okinawa I think (by transport
aircraft
that is). Wish he was around to be quizzed on the details.

A very hush hush operation at the time!


SMH
I actually met the pilot of this Mig in a back room meeting one night. His
name was No Kum Suk or something similar if I recall. Nice guy too! I
remember how stupid it all was trying to keep him a secret when everybody in
sight was interviewing him. In fact, I seem to recall talk in the fighter
community at the time about him being sent to the University of Delaware for
some promised education. I believe he actually did end up there. I lost
track of him after this period. I do know that Yeager, Boyd, and Collins
went to Okinawa to fly the damn thing.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

In article ,
Stephen Harding writes:

Snip - a precis of the Kremlin's hare-brained scheme to capture a
Sabre in Korea Note that Peplayev was much less charitable than I in
his characterization of the plan.

One of the most useful knowledge gains was with the radar controlled gunsight
used on the F-86. Very accurate and helping tilt the balance of light
weaponry of the F-86 (6 .50 MG) against the MiG (37 and 23mm cannon).

The Soviets developed a reciever that listened specifically for the wavelength
of the gunsight radar, thus giving the Soviet pilot some warning of
approaching USAF Sabers. It was prone to give false readings, but was an
overall invaluable feature. The life of its developer was probably saved
by its success since he had the misfortune of being "politically incorrect"
enough to be "denounced" at a time when it meant the Gulag or worse.

This electronic device is standard part of any modern fighter aircraft
indicating "radar lock" from targeting AAA/missiles.

And AN/APG radar was certainly a "find" I don't think that a
dedicated receiver was the result, though. The APG=30 was basically
as sinple as a Police Speed Radar (Well, pulsed instrad of CW Doppler,
but not much more complicated) It was very low power, adn didn't scan,
radiating in an 18 degree fized fan. Range was limited to 'bout
3,000 yds. Even granting that a radar receiver would be able tp pick
up the radar's emissions at longer range, by the time that you'd pick
up the APG-30, teh Sabres would be in sight.

One thing they did profit from was examining teh boosted control
system and (IIRC, it was an F-86E that they got) the flying tail.
This didn't help the MiG-15 or -17 very much, but it made all the
difference in the MiG-19.

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

Peter Stickney wrote:

One thing they did profit from was examining teh boosted control
system and (IIRC, it was an F-86E that they got) the flying tail.
This didn't help the MiG-15 or -17 very much, but it made all the
difference in the MiG-19.

They first got an F86-A and later an E.


SMH

In article ,
Stephen Harding writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

One thing they did profit from was examining teh boosted control
system and (IIRC, it was an F-86E that they got) the flying tail.
This didn't help the MiG-15 or -17 very much, but it made all the
difference in the MiG-19.

They first got an F86-A and later an E.

Ah, O.K.

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

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...

And AN/APG radar was certainly a "find" I don't think that a
dedicated receiver was the result, though. The APG=30 was basically
as sinple as a Police Speed Radar (Well, pulsed instrad of CW Doppler,
but not much more complicated) It was very low power, adn didn't scan,
radiating in an 18 degree fized fan. Range was limited to 'bout
3,000 yds.

The range computer in the AN/APG-30 is pretty slick - not overly
complex, all electronic, and in a pretty small package (actually in
the same box as the power supply).

Uhh...anyone have any spare AN/APG-30 antenna units they would part
with?

--
William Donzelli

One of the most useful knowledge gains was with the radar controlled
gunsight
used on the F-86. Very accurate and helping tilt the balance of light
weaponry of the F-86 (6 .50 MG) against the MiG (37 and 23mm cannon).

In use, did this radar provide a lead point in the HUD at which to aim??

Stupot

In use, did this radar provide a lead point in the HUD at which to aim??

Not a HUD, merely a gunsight. Lead computing gunsights adjust for bullet
trajectory based on gravity and aircraft load factor (G). The pilot could
adjust the sight for target range and (sometimes, usually?) wingspan of the
target aircraft (the better to estimate range by). Once engaged, you had a
sight that provided a correct lead solution for a particular range
(typically 800-1000 feet).

With radar input, the range setting is based on actual target range vice a
fixed input, thereby eliminating a variable in what is typically a highly
dynamic environment.

R / John

In article ,
"John Carrier" writes:
In use, did this radar provide a lead point in the HUD at which to aim??

Not a HUD, merely a gunsight. Lead computing gunsights adjust for bullet
trajectory based on gravity and aircraft load factor (G). The pilot could
adjust the sight for target range and (sometimes, usually?) wingspan of the
target aircraft (the better to estimate range by). Once engaged, you had a
sight that provided a correct lead solution for a particular range
(typically 800-1000 feet).

With radar input, the range setting is based on actual target range vice a
fixed input, thereby eliminating a variable in what is typically a highly
dynamic environment.

If I may amplify a bit, here - The sight itself wasn't all that much
different than any other gyro gunsight. The Gyro sights measured teh
precession of a pair of gyroscopes in the sight to measure the
azimuth/elevation rates when the pilot (or gunner, if it was a turret
installation) tracked the target, cross-referenced that with bullet
Time of Flight, which is affected mostly by range, but also by the
bullet's drag (deceleration after leaving the barrel), and a couple of
other factors (Jump, which is a fudge for the gun moving when the
bullet's fired) and gravity frop (again, propotional to time of
flight). The sight, using the range, jump, and bullet drop factors to
adjust the tension of springs hooked to the gyroscopes, would move the
piipper (Aiming Mark) to the spot calculated to be the correct lead
necessary to hit the target. As you can see, it's really imortant to
have the proper range (and range rate, in more sophisticated sights).
In WW 2, when the sights first came out, this was done using
stadiametric techniques. You dialled in the opponent's wingspan on
the sight, and, using a twist grip like a motorcycle throttle
(Actually on the throttle for fighters, or one of the sight grips for
bombers) adjusted a circular range reference reticle to fit the
wingspan of the target's image. Of course, if the target wasn't quite
head on, you had to fudge it a bit, to get it right. This means,
though, that your pilot or gunner is a busy guy, working the stick &
throttle to smoothly track a jinking target, or a target making a
Curve-of-Pursuit pass, where the range and elevation/azimuth rates are
changing all the time, and trying to be as smooth as possible while
tracking the target so that the sight settles down. The biggest
errors that occurred with the sights were range measurement and
tracking. In the late 1940s, teh Air Force and Navy decided that it
would be a good thing to use a small, non-scanning radar that only
tracked range to feed accurate range measurements to the sight. This
was the genisis of the AN/APG-5 and AN/APG-30 that ended up in all the
U.S. swept-wing jets that didn't have a bigger air-intercept radar.
Thae AN/APG-30 was a small pulse set, that swept a range gate
(it would only look for an echo for a small part of the time that a
pulse was going out & bouncing back, that correponded to a particular
range) out through its max range of 6,000', and would lock onto and
track the range of the nearest target in its field of view. (Well,
it's a little more complicated than that - there was a button on the
pilot's stick that would tell the radar to ignore the target it was
tracking and move out to the next one). This, whne it worked,
provided fairly smooth, accurate range measurements to the signt, and
allowed it to compute a better lead. With teh high closing speeds
that jet fighters had, and the large lead angles needed to track
crossing targets, it was a very useful item indeed.

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

In article ,
(William Donzelli) writes:
Stephen Harding wrote in message ...

The Soviets developed a reciever that listened specifically for the wavelength
of the gunsight radar, thus giving the Soviet pilot some warning of
approaching USAF Sabers. It was prone to give false readings, but was an
overall invaluable feature.

This is interesting, but I must wonder why the Soviets were not clued
in sooner. The radars were X band units, not some oddball frequency. I
would think their countermeasures guys would have received the
emissions almost as soon as the radars were deployed.

Becasue fighter airplanes, especially Soviet-built fighter airplanes,
didn't carry ELINT gear. Panoramic receivers back then ere heavy and
complicated beasts that required very specially trained operators.

They'd also have to be looking at those frequencies, as well. Soviet
stuff at that time tended to be on the lower end of the mifrowave
scale, with most sets being in the VHF & UHF bands, and a few AAA Fire
Control systems being as high as S band. Ther actually was quite a
lot of controversy about the wisdom of fitting S-band jammers (APT-6?)
to the FEAF and SAC B-29s that were bombing the DPRK at night. The
bomber crews wanted the protection, but the PLanning and Strategy
people were worried about losing some over North Korea, and providing
the Soviets with examples of our latest jamming technology and
high-power S-Band transmitting tubes.


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

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...

Becasue fighter airplanes, especially Soviet-built fighter airplanes,
didn't carry ELINT gear. Panoramic receivers back then ere heavy and
complicated beasts that required very specially trained operators.

Certainly the fighters did not have the equipment, but I would think
that the Soviets would have flown ELINT missions, or perhaps a ground
station picking up the emissions.

They'd also have to be looking at those frequencies, as well. Soviet
stuff at that time tended to be on the lower end of the mifrowave
scale, with most sets being in the VHF & UHF bands, and a few AAA Fire
Control systems being as high as S band.

The Soviets knew we liked X band for aircraft radars - it was
available in small quantities on the surplus market at the time.

--
William Donzelli