If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Teaball's info was radioed to a relay aircraft, codenamed Luzon (usually a KC-135), but the radios on Luzon were flaky and prone to interference and _that_ was the reliability problem. Also, there was a complex structure of "who controlled what units when" which varied by mission and depended on "whose radios were working": Red Crown, Disco, College Eye and Teaball all could be in charge at different times in a mission. Sometimes it seems a miracle any of the pilots involved survived. Based upon a quick perusal, it appears what you are presenting is true, but not the "whole truth", so to speak. The EC-121's apparently were indeed performing at least some of the same kind work in support of the inbound/outbound fighters--FAS mentions that the EC's of the 193rd TEWS (PaANG) apparently did also have some interception gear onboard, and another source indicates linguists were indeed included in the crew loads when the EC's were operating over SEA. Quoting Michel directly, "There was considerable SIGINT and other information about the MiGs available from a variety of sources, but this information was jealously guarded by the American agencies that collected it: just because American aircrews were being shot down for lack of this information they saw no reason to release it." Teaball was established at Nakhom Phanom in late July 1972 to co-ordinate the reception, analysis and dissemination of that information. Direct dissemination just didn't seem to happen, at least according to Michel. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Teaball's info was radioed to a relay aircraft, codenamed Luzon (usually a KC-135), but the radios on Luzon were flaky and prone to interference and _that_ was the reliability problem. Also, there was a complex structure of "who controlled what units when" which varied by mission and depended on "whose radios were working": Red Crown, Disco, College Eye and Teaball all could be in charge at different times in a mission. Sometimes it seems a miracle any of the pilots involved survived. Based upon a quick perusal, it appears what you are presenting is true, but not the "whole truth", so to speak. The EC-121's apparently were indeed performing at least some of the same kind work in support of the inbound/outbound fighters--FAS mentions that the EC's of the 193rd TEWS (PaANG) apparently did also have some interception gear onboard, and another source indicates linguists were indeed included in the crew loads when the EC's were operating over SEA. Quoting Michel directly, "There was considerable SIGINT and other information about the MiGs available from a variety of sources, but this information was jealously guarded by the American agencies that collected it: just because American aircrews were being shot down for lack of this information they saw no reason to release it." Teaball was established at Nakhom Phanom in late July 1972 to co-ordinate the reception, analysis and dissemination of that information. Direct dissemination just didn't seem to happen, at least according to Michel. OK, I was apparently confusing the situation with Red Crown. You might find an article by a USAF intel/EWO type of interest; it indicates Red Crown was getting its info from EA-3B's and EC-121M's, and then forwarding that info to the strike packages (though their info may have been only available to the USN packages). Red Crown was also apparently exchanging info with Teaball, but did not require Teaball to originate warnings/directions. I am wondering how accurate the assertion that Teaball info had to come from Teabll via that relay RC-135 was, since that source also indicates Teaball was exchanging info with USAF AWACS EC-121's--we know that these early generation AWACS did also directly control intercepts that resulted in Migs being downed (first occured in July '67). Brooks http://www.dodccrp.org/6thICCRTS/Cd/...k7/012_tr7.pdf Brooks -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Quoting Michel directly, OK, I was apparently confusing the situation with Red Crown. Hey, Michel is good but not perfect. I daresay he's close to the facts, but I would never claim that Teaball was the one and only SIGINT distributor - I've read a book, others were _there_. I'm quoting a participant's book, not Holy Writ. (Hopefully Ed will offer experience or Guy study, they're the SMEs here) You might find an article by a USAF intel/EWO type of interest; it indicates Red Crown was getting its info from EA-3B's and EC-121M's, and then forwarding that info to the strike packages (though their info may have been only available to the USN packages). I did indeed find it of interest - thanks. Red Crown was also apparently exchanging info with Teaball, but did not require Teaball to originate warnings/directions. I am wondering how accurate the assertion that Teaball info had to come from Teabll via that relay RC-135 was, since that source also indicates Teaball was exchanging info with USAF AWACS EC-121's--we know that these early generation AWACS did also directly control intercepts that resulted in Migs being downed (first occured in July '67). I think there was then a significant difference between "AEW or picket ships controlling intercepts" and "compromising the unbelievable possibility that the US could both monitor radio frequencies and find someone who could interpret Vietnamese". From a very distant perspective, SIGINT folks seem to get jumpy about their results being used tactically, sometimes with good reason: if you've got a reliable way to eavesdrop on the enemy and you believe it's of significant strategic value, is it worth compromising it for a short-term tactical advantage? Sometimes this approach is justified: perhaps other times it may be reflex rather than reason. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Quoting Michel directly, OK, I was apparently confusing the situation with Red Crown. Hey, Michel is good but not perfect. I daresay he's close to the facts, but I would never claim that Teaball was the one and only SIGINT distributor - I've read a book, others were _there_. I'm quoting a participant's book, not Holy Writ. (Hopefully Ed will offer experience or Guy study, they're the SMEs here) You might find an article by a USAF intel/EWO type of interest; it indicates Red Crown was getting its info from EA-3B's and EC-121M's, and then forwarding that info to the strike packages (though their info may have been only available to the USN packages). I did indeed find it of interest - thanks. Red Crown was also apparently exchanging info with Teaball, but did not require Teaball to originate warnings/directions. I am wondering how accurate the assertion that Teaball info had to come from Teabll via that relay RC-135 was, since that source also indicates Teaball was exchanging info with USAF AWACS EC-121's--we know that these early generation AWACS did also directly control intercepts that resulted in Migs being downed (first occured in July '67). I think there was then a significant difference between "AEW or picket ships controlling intercepts" and "compromising the unbelievable possibility that the US could both monitor radio frequencies and find someone who could interpret Vietnamese". From a very distant perspective, SIGINT folks seem to get jumpy about their results being used tactically, sometimes with good reason: if you've got a reliable way to eavesdrop on the enemy and you believe it's of significant strategic value, is it worth compromising it for a short-term tactical advantage? Sometimes this approach is justified: perhaps other times it may be reflex rather than reason. My reasoning was more in the line of Teaball very possibly cuing the EC-121 (which was indeed operating as a primitive AWACS, since they were not only observing with their radar but also directing the fighters) to likely threats before they popped into the EC's range. Brooks -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
From a very distant perspective, SIGINT folks seem to get jumpy about their results being used tactically, sometimes with good reason: if you've got a reliable way to eavesdrop on the enemy and you believe it's of significant strategic value, is it worth compromising it for a short-term tactical advantage? Sometimes this approach is justified: perhaps other times it may be reflex rather than reason. Intriguinly, the USAF seemed to have much less trouble utilizing this sort of information during the Korean war then during the Vietnam war. Wonder what the difference was? from: http://www.nsa.gov/korea/papers/sigi...korean_war.htm "Air Force Support The Air Force Security Service continued support to the air during the period of stalemate. The AFSS also adopted a number of innovations to provide new kinds of support for the air war. A good example of AFSS support occurred in June 1951. Analysts at an Air Force intercept site were able to accurately predict a North Korean bombing raid on UN-held islands. This intelligence enabled the commanding general of the U.S. 5th Air Force to ensure that the raid was met with ample defense. one YAK and two IL-10 bombers were downed, several others were damaged, and two MiG fighters were also damaged. It is believed that the commander of the 5th Air Force may have been aware of the impending raid before the commander of the North Korean attacking unit had received his orders. In late April 1951, AFSS personnel intercepted messages that indicated aircraft of the 4th Fighter Squadron were being boxed by Soviet aircraft. The quick relay of this information to the flight enabled it to avoid the trap. This kind of warning continued through the war. Soviet Bloc Air defense doctrine called for control of local fighter pilots by their tower. These ground control intercept (GCI) communications were vulnerable to eavesdroppers. At various periods during the air campaign, COMINT units from the AFSS were intercepting North Korean, Chinese, or Soviet instructions to their pilots. These were disguised as "radar plots" and forwarded in near-real time to U.S. pilots operating over North Korean territory. When this source was exploited, the U.S. "kill ratio" over MiGs was quite high; during periods of nonexploitation, the ratio was much lower. Monitoring of North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet air communications was done from listening posts in South Korea, but there were hearability problems for certain areas at different times of the day. To solve these problems, in mid-1951 the AFSS established an intercept site on Paengyong-do - commonly known as "P-Y-do" by Americans - a UN-held island close to the west coast of North Korea. Since this was close to enemy territory, the security regulations had to be relaxed, and 5th Air Force had to provide special evacuation service. Eventually the Americans abandoned their effort on the island. Once this activity on P-Y-do proved successful, in the spring of 1952 a similar operation was undertaken on Cho-do, a UN-held island off the east coast of Korea, near Wonson. Lieutenant Delmar Lang organized teams of linguists and personnel from the Tactical Air Control Center to provide near-real-time information to pilots operating over North Korea. Del Lang, by the way, used this operation as a model for similar activity during the Vietnam War. Security Service also conducted airborne collection operations. In addition to support of the war effort, these flights were useful in testing intercept equipment and general concepts of operations." Chris Manteuffel |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Clonfero ] wrote in message ...
In article , Chad Irby wrote: Well, only because you carry an awful lot of it. It's got a specific density less than one, so it's a fair assumption that replacing a gun installation with a fuel tank saves you weight - even if you assume that 50% of the volume of a gun installation is free air. But compared to the amount of fuel you get, it's not a massive savings by any stretch. You're also forgetting that fuel tanks weigh a *lot*, not to mention their associated piping and pumping systems. Sure - but making an existing tank bigger has a very very marginal increase in tank weight; and no additional cost in piping and pumping. It's the fact that a gun adds a completely different support line than "more of the same" missiles which drives the whole life cost up. Not really. Missiles are *bloody* expensive to buy, store, maintain, and use. Guns are cheap in comparison. A gun and a few hundred thousand rounds of ammunition are less than the price of a couple of plane's worth of missiles, and that's before you add in maintenance costs. Yes, but by eliminating the guns, you eliminate the gun, the ammunition, the three lines of servicing, a complete trade of ground crew, and both the servicing and pilot's training for gun maintenance and usage. Yep. And if you eliminate the missiles and the plane's radar too, you'll save most of the cost of the weapon system! Military aircraft are extremely expensive to purchase, maintain and train for. It makes no sense to save a tiny percentage of the whole-life costs of acquiring an aircraft system if by doing so you remove a useful, if secondary, military capability. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Tony
Williams wrote: Yep. And if you eliminate the missiles and the plane's radar too, you'll save most of the cost of the weapon system! Military aircraft are extremely expensive to purchase, maintain and train for. It makes no sense to save a tiny percentage of the whole-life costs of acquiring an aircraft system if by doing so you remove a useful, if secondary, military capability. Oh, I quite agree with your point - the whole life cost saving of deleting the gun is negligible when compared with the WLC of the whole system. My issue is with people who say that you don't save much, in absolute terms - because you do. Aetherem Vincere Matt -- To err is human To forgive is not Air Force Policy |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
This parsing of the snap-shot situation concluding a half second
advantage in fire weight - even a full second - is rather disingenuous in that a skilled pilot will see the possibility of a snap shot developing and be already firing before the non-tracked target passes through the zone of fire. I well remember that gun camera film of Korean War F86 pilot Major Pete Fernandez' ninety degree shot on a MiG 15 - he was firing before the MiG entered the pcture - hits plastered the MiG and it went out of the frame smoking badly. IN WW2 one of the 'experten' jumped Sailor Malan - Malan broke into his attacker and hosed him on a quartering head-on shot. The attacker was wounded badly and had to break for home. His name doesn't come to me at the moment. I maintain the M61 can hold its own in any situation. Situation awareness is the key. Without that the impulsive squeeze of the trigger as an aircraft passes swiftly in front of you is generally futile as the rounds will pass behind him. Walt BJ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
P-39's, zeros, etc. | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 12 | July 23rd 03 05:48 AM |