F-4 chaff/flare loads

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

ALE-40 dispensers were added to F-4Es around '74-'75. We never got
them on C models in USAFE at all.


I saw chaff dispensers at RAF Lakenheath in '76-'77', never saw them mounted
on an F-4D though. I don't know how old they were, but they were pretty
well beat up.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

They weren't mounted because they didn't yet exist. The ALE-40 (the
blister dispenser bolted on the side of the wing pylons) came into
production around '73 or '74 after the air war was over. As I
mentioned, the operational E-models got them, but they never got
retrofitted to the C's that were still active. (I don't know about the
D's.)


I saw an F-4D at Oshkosh about fifteen years ago that had previously been at
RAF Lakenheath, it was brought in by the Minnesota ANG from Duluth. They
had some blisters on the rear of the pylons that I was not familiar with. I
asked the AC about them, he said one side was a chaff dispenser and the
other was flares. They were added some time after the aircraft left
Lakenheath in 1977.

To be honest, all the details you mentioned here were completely unknown to
me so far, Juvat. Thanks for your remarks.

What I explained above is what I was told by the people who were there. They
were also very positive about the performance of the Iranian pilot of that
Phantom, Maj. Shokounia (killed by the regime in Tehran, in 1980). He and
the USAF Lt.Col. were, BTW, exchanged with the Russians for a box with a
film from some Soviet satellite, that fell into an Iranian oil-field by
mistake.

Otherwise, the USAF and the IIAF were flying intensively beyond the Soviet
borders with recce Phantoms already since 1970: initially, two USAF RF-4Cs
were used, but later the Iranians purchased RF-4Es. Most of the missions had
mixed crews, with Iranians usually flying and the USAF officers controlling
the equipment. According to what I learned about these flights so far (the
details about most of which are still kept secret for some unknown reason),
the RF-4Es used for these missions were tightly guarded and exclusively
equipped (so exclusively, that they had permanent guards while on the
ground). AFAIK, they've got even IR-linescaners (which should have been some
pretty exotic stuff at the time). Surely, only really experienced and
"smart" people were tasked to fly these missions.

BTW, in addition to the example lost in 1973, another IIAF RF-4E (again with
a mixed crew) was shot down by the Soviets sometimes in 1977 or so,
apparently in revenge for their MiG-25R shot down by an Iranian F-4E (which
almost run out of fuel while trying to intercept). I don't know what
happened with the crew, but I guess they survived too. Interestingly, the
USAF supplied two recce-Phantoms from own stocks to Iran as replacement for
every example these have lost in operations over the USSR. The situation
culminated in October 1978, with Iranian F-14s intercepting a MiG-25R high
over the Casspian Sea: subsequently the Soviets ceased all flights, and the
story was over.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:21:31 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:

[stuff snipped]

According to what I learned about these flights so far (the
details about most of which are still kept secret for some unknown reason),
the RF-4Es used for these missions were tightly guarded and exclusively
equipped (so exclusively, that they had permanent guards while on the
ground). AFAIK, they've got even IR-linescaners (which should have been some
pretty exotic stuff at the time).

The US Army had IR linescan on OV-1s in the early '60s....

John Hairell )

Juvat wrote in message . ..
Tom Cooper posted:

BTW, from what I know a USAF Lt.Col. who was in the back-seat of the IIAF
RF-4E ...used photo-flash cartriges to decoy four R-13s:

Really? By 1980 no photo-flash cart in the USAF would have done that,
wrong band of the IR spectrum...versus the IR seeker's spectrum. Thank
goodness for early generation technology theft.


I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker. I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess. My comments are aimed more at the
comment about "by 1980 it could not have worked".

While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands. An example is the modern IR countermeasures flare.
Lets say the MJU-49B.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ems/mju-49.htm

This flare is tailored to put most of its energy out in the threat
bands of interest. The page above claims 2 to 5 micrometers. This
encompasses both the near IR and the mid IR bands. Or, both uncooled
and cooled PbS detector systems. The response curves of PbS (and
other detector responses) can be found he

http://www.electro-optical.com/bb_rad/detector.htm

Despite the fact that the MJU-49B is tailored, specifically made, to
emit most of its energy in the near and mid IR bands, a significant
portion of energy is still emitted in the visible portion of the
spectrum (shorter wavelengths). And, it is easier to tailor towards
the longer waves, than it is to do so towards the shorter waves, such
as the visible band. The band of emission is tied loosely to heat
energy, less energy, longer wavelengths. Or, less heat, longer
wavelengths.

Still, the point is that flares tailored to work in the IR spectrum
still, very often, possibly even always, emit in the visible spectrum
as well.

http://www.warforum.net/gallery/disp...=lastup&pid=61

So, my question is, why could photo-flash cartridges used by the USAF
in 1980 NOT have served as an stand-in IR countermeasures flare? Has
it something to do with the fashion of dispense? Do they not light
until well away from the aircraft? Or am I missing something more
obviouse here?

Token

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

I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker.

OK

I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess.

Not surprisingly, you're impression was common back then.

While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands.

I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.

The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.

We watched a couple AVTR clips showing various IRCM techiques against
AIM-9P and L seekers and some foreign made seekers. The tests by the
guys at TAWC concludeded the photo-flash didn't decoy any seekers. And
there were remarks like, "We'd really like to show you some more neat
stuff, but you guys don't have need to know."

Additionally RF-4s had specific IR flares manufactured for their cart
breeches, not simply photo-flash carts modified to bloom early and
burn longer. I know they worked against the AIM-9 from DACT with the
MS or AL ANG.

Still, the point is that flares tailored to work in the IR spectrum
still, very often, possibly even always, emit in the visible spectrum
as well.

No problem.

I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...

Juvat

"Juvat" wrote in message
..

Yes the MC had/has some neat toys.

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



I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...

Juvat

Juvat wrote in message . ..
I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.

The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.


I can totally buy that the eject profile is wrong, and that they get
out of the track beam of the seeker before they bloom. That is one of
the major design issues with IR counter measures flares, getting them
to heat up quick, without being explosive. However, IRCM flares are
JUST short of "explosive", they have a very rapid velocity factor. If
you have ever listened to them from outside the AC, say on the ground
under the AC, they make a very distinctive "pop" on ignition, a pop
that can be heard over a pair of engines in reheat.

I mean, if you go to this page:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm
You will see that the track "beam" of a period weapon, in this case
the SA-7b, is only 1.9 degrees wide. This is the instantaneous field
of view. That means that the flare would only have to move half this
value, or .95 degrees, to be out of the beam of the weapon (assuming
the weapon is tracking the aircraft). Lets figure a beam shot (yes, I
know, not with a 7b), at mid envelope range, say 2000 yards, 6000
feet. At that range 1 degree (17.5 mils) is about 105 feet. Lets
assume an aircraft speed of about 450 knots. That means the aircraft
is moving about 750 feet / sec. Or, the flare must come up to a high
enough energy state to mask the aircraft in less than 0.15 seconds, or
150 millisecond.

As far as the photo-flash flares having "not enough heat", I can see
someone saying that, in fact I have heard similar quotes from supposed
knowing individuals, but the physics just don't work that way. Less
heat means more shift to the red end. That is why something is
described as being "white hot". So, what it amounts to is, if it is a
pyrotechnic device (and these are) it will emit at least as much in
the IR as in the visible. Infra Red emissions happen at a lower energy
state then visible light emissions. So that even when it has burned
out, and is not issuing very much visible light, it will still be
emitting in the IR. This is a generalization, but a good one for
flares.

A high school physics example here. Take a DC light bulb, say a 12
volt car lamp. Turn down the voltage getting to the lamp, the lower
the voltage, the redder the lamp will glow. Eventually the lamp will
no longer put out visible light, but will still stay hot to the touch.
It is still putting out IR, but the energy state is lower, too low to
produce "white" light.


We watched a couple AVTR clips showing various IRCM techiques against
AIM-9P and L seekers and some foreign made seekers. The tests by the
guys at TAWC concludeded the photo-flash didn't decoy any seekers. And
there were remarks like, "We'd really like to show you some more neat
stuff, but you guys don't have need to know."

Additionally RF-4s had specific IR flares manufactured for their cart
breeches, not simply photo-flash carts modified to bloom early and
burn longer. I know they worked against the AIM-9 from DACT with the
MS or AL ANG.


Yes, IR flares are specifically designed, not an adaptation of other
types of flares. The point of what I am saying is that photo-flash
flares will have some signature in the proper IR bands, but without a
doubt, it could be made better.



I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...

Juvat


lol...magic...magic with some kind of ALQ designator ;-) And that is
old tech, you should see some kind of DIRCM at work.

Token

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

However, IRCM flares are
JUST short of "explosive", they have a very rapid velocity factor. If
you have ever listened to them from outside the AC, say on the ground
under the AC, they make a very distinctive "pop" on ignition, a pop
that can be heard over a pair of engines in reheat.

Hehe...standing on the ramp I've heard the carts fire whilst
jettisoning a CL tank off a Phantom from over a mile away.

Sincere thanks for the link.

As far as the photo-flash flares having "not enough heat", I can see
someone saying that, in fact I have heard similar quotes from supposed
knowing individuals, but the physics just don't work that way.

Oops, my poor choice of words. The video we watched clearly showed
foreign (as in those from the SA-7 and an early version of the Atoll)
seekers NOT tracking a photo-flash cart either singles or pairs. I
took them at their word. Another test showed AIM-9 Lima versus Papa
flare rejection abilities in relatively clear air mass, at high
aspect. Way out at 10 miles a Papa would bite off on an IR flare.

Yes, IR flares are specifically designed, not an adaptation of other
types of flares. The point of what I am saying is that photo-flash
flares will have some signature in the proper IR bands, but without a
doubt, it could be made better.

Fair enough, I am unable to dispute your logic. I love physics, but
don't have the memory (or notes) to get very deep in the topic. But
please feel free to expound...I always like learning.

lol...magic...magic with some kind of ALQ designator ;-) And that is
old tech, you should see some kind of DIRCM at work.

Indeed, I'm long removed from a fighter cockpit to venture a WAG.

Juvat

Tom Cooper wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:23:25 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:

snip

What's an R-13? Do you mean SA-7 or Atoll?

That's the original service designation for the AA-2 Atoll (K-13 was the
design designation).

Tom, IIRR the AA-2A (K-13) was designated the R-3S in service, while the later
versions switched to R-13 (M and M2 IIRC) to bring the service designation in
line with the design designation. I've got an old Air International article by
Piotr Butowski around here somewhere; he was given access to Vympel's chief
designer as well as their museum, and the different models were described.
There was also a cutaway of what we would call an AA-2D, which IIRR was
designated the R-13M2.

I know the SA-7 was not that widespread nor as a serious a threat as some
other stuff at the time, and remember from reding Mitchel's "Clashes" and
few other books about the air war in SEA how often it happened that the
first warning from a MiG was either a Phantom or a Thud going up in flames.

But, in several cases the attacks were noticed when one of the crews saw
contrails from R-13s being underway behind them. Clear, the R-13 could't do
much against a maneuvering aircraft (AFAIK any maneuver beyond 2g was too
much for it to track), but, IMHO, perhaps the use of flare-dispensers
could've saved a crew or two more?

Carrying chaff dispensers would have been far more use in general, given the
relative likelihood of encountering MiGs and SAMs/AAA. The R-3S could be easily
outmaneuvered if seen in time, or decoyed by the sun, clouds, or the sun shining
on water.

Guy