|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2013 10:47:35 GMT -6
Just some thoughts on this March intercept of Iranian F-4s by F-22s. First, we don't have an exact diagram of how the F-22s approached the F-4s. Second, we don't know if the F-22s shut down their radars. This is important because if they didn't, the tail warning system on the F-4s, located at the top of the vertical stabilizer, would have given the Iranian pilots some warning. Third, the F-4's rearward visibility stinks, and I don't doubt the NFO didn't see them, probably was looking into his scope to find the MQ-1 Drone.
The point here is we are not getting enough information, factual information. I am certain those F-22 pilots did a hot washup on the incident and might have learned a few lessons. On the other hand, so did the F-4 pilots. Mig-21s and F-4s were notorious for their poor rearward vision, a problem solved in the F-14, and other later US and Russian made fighters.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 21, 2013 15:22:38 GMT -6
Would the tail warning system on the F-4 have even picked up the APG-77 radar on the F-22? It's a Low Probability of Intercept system, and that's an old RWR system unless they've made substantial upgrades. One of the accounts I've heard of the F-14/MiG-23 engagement off Libya in the 1980s stated that the F-14A RWRs couldn't pick up the MiG-23s' radars, because by that point the systems were about ten years out of date. If the system on the F-4 was original equipment, it might not have even picked up a non-LPI 4th-gen radar like the APG-63 or -65. That presumes the thing even works anymore in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2013 18:38:55 GMT -6
Would the tail warning system on the F-4 have even picked up the APG-77 radar on the F-22? It's a Low Probability of Intercept system, and that's an old RWR system unless they've made substantial upgrades. One of the accounts I've heard of the F-14/MiG-23 engagement off Libya in the 1980s stated that the F-14A RWRs couldn't pick up the MiG-23s' radars, because by that point the systems were about ten years out of date. If the system on the F-4 was original equipment, it might not have even picked up a non-LPI 4th-gen radar like the APG-63 or -65. That presumes the thing even works anymore in the first place. An RWR is designed to detect threats, specifically radar and laser guided missiles. It is usually a crystal controlled wide band receiver which does assist with jamming. However, it is designed for close threats, not long distance threats. It gives you a " not lethal, lethal, a big threat" and the direction but not exact range. It can, in some cases give the type of threat but not always. If the NFO is no really paying attention and neither is the pilot, they could have missed the indications especially if they turned off the audio threat notification which used to drive pilots crazy. Did they pick up the F-22? With all the radar and electronic sources in the area, its possible they disregarded it. They were not that far from Iranian territory, that might have been a reason also. Hard to know.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 21, 2013 20:10:29 GMT -6
From Wikipedia - "Constructing a radar so as to emit minimal side and back lobes may also reduce the probability of interception when it is not pointing at the radar warning receiver. However, when the radar is sweeping a large volume of space for targets, it is likely that the main lobe will repeatedly be pointing at the RWR. Modern phased-array radars not only control their side lobes, they also use very thin, fast-moving beams of energy in complicated search patterns. This technique may be enough to confuse the RWR so it does not recognize the radar as a threat, even if the signal itself is detected." I imagine the F-4's RWR was not built with that kind of threat in mind, and the F-22 probably could have tracked it and locked it up without the IRIAF pilot and RIO ever being the wiser. Again, this presupposes the F-4's RWR was even operational. I'm assuming it was an F-4E out of either Bandar Abbas or Bushehr; last I checked their remaining F-4Ds were at Chahbahar in the far southeast. On another subject - www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_21_2013_p01-01-628343.xml
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 22, 2013 7:55:59 GMT -6
From Wikipedia - "Constructing a radar so as to emit minimal side and back lobes may also reduce the probability of interception when it is not pointing at the radar warning receiver. However, when the radar is sweeping a large volume of space for targets, it is likely that the main lobe will repeatedly be pointing at the RWR. Modern phased-array radars not only control their side lobes, they also use very thin, fast-moving beams of energy in complicated search patterns. This technique may be enough to confuse the RWR so it does not recognize the radar as a threat, even if the signal itself is detected." I imagine the F-4's RWR was not built with that kind of threat in mind, and the F-22 probably could have tracked it and locked it up without the IRIAF pilot and RIO ever being the wiser. Again, this presupposes the F-4's RWR was even operational. I'm assuming it was an F-4E out of either Bandar Abbas or Bushehr; last I checked their remaining F-4Ds were at Chahbahar in the far southeast. On another subject - www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_21_2013_p01-01-628343.xml Here is a list of available RWRs; APR-38; APR-39; APR-43; APR-47. I worked on the APR-25. Here is a link to page that some descriptions and pictures. www.prc68.com/I/RWR.shtml - The scope in the pictures, on an F-4j was mounted at the top of instrument panel for the NFO however, the scope for the AWG-10A fire control radar was located down near the bottom. If you were looking at the scope during an intercept, the audio for the APR-25 was supposed to warn you of a threat, then you could look up to see its direction. Hopefully, one of the two or another aircraft had already located the missile launch. Remember that RWRs were short ranged detectors. On the USAF F-4E the APR-35 was bigger and located on the upper right hand side of the instrument panel whereas the fire control radar, APQ-120, scope was located up higher. I think you could probably see both at the same time. Hope that gives a better sense of the issues here. Here is another link - www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-apr-39.htm The carrier based aircraft operating near Vietnam was supposed to turn a manual switch on their Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) to short out the receiver before they left the plane. They were also not supposed to activate any of their radar's while on deck. If both of these rules were broken the result would be that the RWR with the switch in the receive position would have it's front end burned out. The pilot would not know this until he was attacked with no warning from the RWR. Thanks to a another site for reminding me. The Iranian F-4s are receiving or have received upgrades from China on their avionics. If you are interested, you need to research their RWRs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 30, 2013 9:53:34 GMT -6
British F-4J's
Just some information that you might find interesting. After the Falkland Islands war, the British decided to reinforce the islands. The airstrip at Port Stanley was upgraded and Phantom operations were initiated with the 29th Squadron. In fact, another RAF station at Mount Pleasant was constructed and the 23 Squadron was moved to the island. Unfortunately, this deprived NATO of a whole squadron of F-4Ks.
In order to replace those aircraft, the British came to the US and purchased some recently retired F-4Js from Davis-Monthan. The F-4Js had the smokeless engines and were actually better performing aircraft than the F-4Ks designed for the British. They were moved to the Naval Air Depot at North Island where I worked and we overhauled them, substituting some British equipment for US Navy equipment, cocooned them and they were shipped to the UK to replace the ones sent to the Falklands. Across the road from our Avionics building, there was a long metal storage structure that had a locked fence around it, and it had the sign UK F-4. This was the storage structure for their unique equipment. I don't remember which building they were overhauled in but I think it was the western hanger on Bldg. 378.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2013 13:44:14 GMT -6
'Son of Blackbird': Plan for a new spy planewww.cnn.com/2013/11/05/tech/innovation/new-spy-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_c3Another war story for you. When I was stationed at Point Arena AFS, we used to get high flyer messages from NORAD. This meant that an SR-71 was leaving Beale AFB from the Strategic Reconnaissance Wing at that base. He climbed over the coast range and went over us at 80,000 ft. We usually got about three to five paints of him, then NORAD swung our antenna away from him. He was headed to Okinawa then to Vietnam for a mission over Hanoi. When I moved to Fallon, they used to land on our runway, then they would taxi into a hanger and close the doors. At the San Diego Air and Space Museum, they have an SR-71 on a pedestal outside of the museum. Really cool aircraft, if you haven't seen one. It used to leak fuel until it got up to speed and the heat expanded the wing panels.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 5, 2013 20:44:35 GMT -6
Heh, I've heard a few classic SR-71 stories from a friend who works at Seattle's Museum of Flight. One was the oft-repeated airspeed check. The other involved a pilot deployed to Kadena who decided to buzz the Navy and Marine guys surfing off the beach.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 25, 2013 14:08:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 25, 2013 16:21:24 GMT -6
First, the F-111 was not a fiasco, as a fighter it was not well suited, but as a light to medium low altitude bomber, it was superb. Once the problems were resolved, like any new technology it required some time, it has served with distinction and handled many difficult missions.
The F-4 was built around a new air combat doctrine, that there would be no air combat maneuvering, just acquisition of the target, track and fire; very simple, no maneuvering and no requirement for guns. The first F-4s were F-4Bs with the APQ-72 single target track, airborne intercept radar. It had no look down, shoot down capability and was tube based, not integrated circuit. The USAF F-4C was a Navy F-4B even with the tail hook but with a drogue shoot. Both were equipped to fire AIM-7 Sparrows and AIM-9 Sidewinders. The USAF preferred the former but the Navy preferred the latter. As the article states, it was to fight in BVR but problems immediately arose. The initial versions of both did not have IFF interrogators, just transponder so they could not determine if a bogie was friend or foe, so ROE's were changed so that you had to see your opponent and verify him. That put you in range of the 30 mm DEFA cannons on board the MIG's. The problem was solved with the APX-76 IFF interrogation system(I worked on it in a copper enclosure with a locked door to prevent extraneous IFF signals from being emitted especially guard channel which was the emergency IFF channel. ) Now the problem with the AIM-7 was two fold, it was designed for dry climates and had no anti-moisture coating applied to it, so the corrosion of the moist Vietnam climate played havoc with it. The second problem was the fact that it was tube based, so it was susceptible to vibration and acceleration damage. Both problems were solved with coatings and integrated circuits. One last problem was the short lanyard which pulled out when the missile was ejected from the LAU-7A missile launcher. The lanyard would break, leaving the plug in place and the missile would not fire. This was why the rippled fired the missile to ensure they got at least one to ignite. My dad was involved in the solution with Crane, Indiana to the problem, as his fire control shop at the depot handled the launchers, bomb racks and tow reels.
The real problem was the deterioration of air combat tactics and this was revised after a secret 1969 Ault Report, I have a copy, which changed the attitude and instituted Red Flag for the USAF and Top Gun for the Navy. The first pilots learned to fight in the vertical not in the horizontal. These doctrinal changes along with improvements to the engines so they did not smoke, adding leading edge flaps, installation of IFF jammers, tail warning radars, and a multiple target track(termed track while scan), look-down, shoot-down radar in the form of the AWG-10A, solved the issues and the AtoA kill ratio climbed. ( worked on it also) We learned our failures in doctrine thanks to Colonel Boyd and his energy-maneuverability charts, his work was used to design the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. His OODA loop has made him famous and he never lost a dogfight. The F-4 pilots learned to merge then as they passed, zoom climb using AB, then roll out at the top because the Migs would not go canopy to canopy with the F-4s because they did not have the excess power and would stall. If the Mig turned tight, the pilots were taught to barrel roll to the outside of the arc and then cut across catching the Mig in their sights.
The above information should give you an accurate idea of what will happen to the F-35. We will adapt to its positive capabilities and work to correct its negatives. It will be training, testing and technological improvement but the pilots are the key. We need to be careful how we use historical analogies. This is not the Cold War, the geostrategic situation has changed. Air combat has changed, defenses have changed. Even our procurement and project management have changed. I believe the F-35 will turn out fine, in time.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 29, 2013 13:13:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 31, 2013 18:28:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 31, 2013 20:06:35 GMT -6
The Navy is trying to figure out how to maintain air superiority with reduced carriers and fighters. A bomb truck for air to air, now there's a novelty. I guess we are back to old idea of BVR and stealth will eliminate ACM. Somehow I remember going through this in Vietnam. We all know how that turned out. I wonder if anyone realizes that there are only three guys in the back of an E2D and one of them is the flight tech. The other two, the ACO and CICO are a little busy to be acquiring, tracking and firing missiles. C'mon, Man.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 3, 2014 22:04:53 GMT -6
There are some possibilities I could see for getting clever with it, but you're right - I don't think this is something you'd put an E-2D crew on. More likely the control platform would be a fast-mover, with the system set up so the pilot or WSO (in the case of an F/A-18F, EA-18G, or possibly the F/A-XX down the road) could access the missiles on the UCLASS just like his own onboard weapons. For the F-35 that might be a big help if it's trying to operate with internal weapons only. Still, falls under "let's test this idea extensively and as realistically as possible before betting people and planes on it."
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 3, 2014 22:21:59 GMT -6
There are some possibilities I could see for getting clever with it, but you're right - I don't think this is something you'd put an E-2D crew on. More likely the control platform would be a fast-mover, with the system set up so the pilot or WSO (in the case of an F/A-18F, EA-18G, or possibly the F/A-XX down the road) could access the missiles on the UCLASS just like his own onboard weapons. For the F-35 that might be a big help if it's trying to operate with internal weapons only. Still, falls under "let's test this idea extensively and as realistically as possible before betting people and planes on it." The Navy will have to define the requirements for this bird and possibly the doctrine that will surround it. It might require more than four E2's on the carriers with one or two dedicated to this type of mission or off load the mission to the USAF E3 AWACS birds. They could just let the management of this type of operation to a central mission control at Riyadh or some place like that and control using satellites with the signals sent through the carriers or E2s. We need more information. But the possibilities are certainly there.
|
|