That's what we worked on with my trainer at the F4 RAG, but we had a heavy emphasis on Visual ID engagements with Sidewinders, due to the ROEs at the time and the lack of Sparrow reliability in hot humid climates.
Cheers,
Wes
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's what we worked on with my trainer at the F4 RAG, but we had a heavy emphasis on Visual ID engagements with Sidewinders, due to the ROEs at the time and the lack of Sparrow reliability in hot humid climates.the XF8U-3 actually outperformed the F-4, but the single pilot got behind the curve especially in radar intercepts with the Sparrow.
Déjà vu. The Air Force F4 OTU at MacDill had to ask the Navy F4 RAG at Key West to stop hassling their pilots. Their BFM training area abutted our ACM training range out over the Gulf of Mexico, and a certain amount of "border jumping" was taking place that was hurting AF trainee morale. They had to keep scraping the wax off their tails.the NASA guys routinely beat the Phantom guys, but this stopped when the Navy asked NASA to stop picking on them.
Was this about mapping their command structure?Those were the Navy ELINT birds, who operated under radio silence.
They couldn't see everything well enough? There was this book called "Clashes" and they talk about matters such as the collected data being unable to be sent to the fighters.For the Air Force AWACS planes, call sign: Hillsborough, their job was air traffic control and fighter direction. Their handicap was that from south of DMZ, their coverage of the north was limited.
No...got information from Westinghouse Linthicum Heights Md.Dan - I think you have to do more research because I think you might be quoting lines from Top Gun or Hot Shots.
file:///C:/Users/JMOR1/Downloads/an-examination-of-the-f-8-crusader-through-archival-sources.pdf
Technically, even during Vietnam there were EC-121's that were effective control agencies, when they were allowed to tell pilots they were being tailed.
I don't really get the point: In WWII, pilots were often made aware of where planes were forming up so they could quickly go in there and bust them up.
I think the USN had a better feel for what had to be kept secret and what didn't.
No...got information from Westinghouse Linthicum Heights Md.
They developed AWACS with help from NRL Radar and Wave propagation division at Bolling AFB.
Navy and USAF used and liked the Connie....I know personally some of the crew and engineers.
USAF did not have a radar system to see Migs taking off.
Did have them for Defensive use not for offensive.
The Navy could see them after they took off and got some Altitude for the coastal missions they flew.
Navy also adopted AWACS early warning systems.
When it was implemented US Fighters could be staged to meeting them.
That is when the Vietnamese started losing a lot more fighters.
The ELINT birds were full spectrum snoopers. They could monitor and record just about every form of electromagnetic emision generated in their assigned area. Everything from broadcast radio and TV, all kinds of communications, microwave, navigation, radar, IFF, remote control signals, missile steering signals, you name it, they got it on tape. They carried linguists, cryptographers, communications specialists, intelligence analysts and spooks of all stripes onboard, and could record just about any event in real time. Needless to say, they could track and record MiGs as they intercepted strike forces, and by listening on aircraft frequencies, could hear them being vectored for attack runs. They knew which bases the MiGs were coming from by their communications long before they could see them on radar.Was this about mapping their command structure?
Both the airborne radars south of DMZ and the Lima sites in Laos had too much terrain between them and the scene of the action to see low altitude targets. It didn't take the NVAF long to figure this out, so they would approach their targets at high speed on the deck, then pop up under their victims and shoot. The AI and terrain mapping radars that the Americans carried had a hard time painting a fast mover in the weeds in look-down mode and of course, no coverage at six o'clock low. The only folks in the know were the helpless spectators in the ELINT birds and they could only hear and mostly not see.USAF did not have a radar system to see Migs taking off.
These were the E2 Hawkeyes, commonly known as "hummers". Their primary mission was task force protection and AirTraffic Control, but they could see much further into "feet dry" territory than the ship based radars could, and they didn't have the intelligence constraints the Willy Victors did.Navy also adopted AWACS early warning systems.
Basically, it had the chin intake feeding an engine that exhausted out the back, a variable-incidence high wing, a low stabilator, and a single vertical tail. It also had cheek mounted missiles, but the airframe was totally different in addition to the engines.Regarding the fly off between the XF8U-3 and F-4, that F-8 was a totally different jet than the F8U-1 and F8U-2N used in Vietnam.
Early on the requirement was 3 AIM-7 (early on called the AAM-N-6, all the way until 1963, the missile systems still differed); as the design evolved, they specified that it carry both together.The Crusader III had a single J-75, same as the F-105 and F-106, carried 3 Sparrows 4 Sidewinders
Never installed at all: While Vought wanted to install them, the USN had little interest, and as the design went from the earliest configurationsthe same crappy Colt 20mm cannons (never installed in the test articles)
I'm not sure if was exactly melting, so much as losing structural strength. From what I recall, it would probably take a few minutes at high speed before it would seriously endanger the aircraft's structural integrity (I wouldn't want to be the pilot on that flight). There was also an issue with the glass itself turning opaque at high speeds. Ultimately, the proposal was to use a different type of glass, and use a new lamination technique.at mach 2.3 the windshield began to melt.
That was actually the biggest problem, more so than the number of engines. I'm not sure by how much, but that was something that really had them concerned. Interestingly, the F4D/F3H both used single-seaters and seemed to have given a good account of themselves.In the fly off, the XF8U-3 actually outperformed the F-4, but the single pilot got behind the curve especially in radar intercepts with the Sparrow.
Multi-mission capable was probably the bigger of the two, though it was possible to fit up to 6000 pound bomb-load to the aircraft.The Navy preferred two engines, two crew and an ability to be multi mission capable.
That was the radar in my trainer, and with all its bells and whistles, operating it was a full time job. A pilot trying to do that and engage in combat would be seriously task saturated.Radar replaced from AN/APQ-50 to the AN/APQ-72 (32" radome used on F-4)
No it wouldn't. We built gunpacks at GE to strap onto gunless F4s, and they worked great on the ground. In the air they were useless, as they couldn't be rigidly enough attached to the airframe to garauntee bullet strike on the aiming point with flight loads applied. Pilots described it as "a loose fire hose".The provision for the gun-pack, provided the USN pursued it (it seemed something the RN was more interested in than us), would have provided an effective armament as it was basically an M-61.
Possible, but the automation the F8U-3 had would have basically computed interception vectors automatically and relayed that into a steering dot.That was the radar in my trainer, and with all its bells and whistles, operating it was a full time job. A pilot trying to do that and engage in combat would be seriously task saturated.
Well, that's a gunpod and it was attached to a thin pylon: The F8U-3 proposal called for a semi-submerged kind of configuration, which would probably have fairly little wiggle room compared to the F-4's set-up. That said, I could be wrong as I could envision some vibration setting up.No it wouldn't. We built gunpacks at GE to strap onto gunless F4s, and they worked great on the ground. In the air they were useless, as they couldn't be rigidly enough attached to the airframe to garauntee bullet strike on the aiming point with flight loads applied. Pilots described it as "a loose fire hose".
Not exactly. It attached directly to the centerline hardpoint, replacing the centerline fuel tank, which meant a couple of wing pylons had to be rededicated from ordnance to fuel.Well, that's a gunpod and it was attached to a thin pylon
Our APQ72 did that too, through its (I forget the nomenclature) AP51?? fire control computer. That's pretty much basic to any AI radar of its generation. The problem was that the system had many different modes and options that had to be manually selected, and the antenna had to be manually steered in azimuth, elevation, and range in acquisition mode to highlight a target and enable lockon. The level of automation was severely constrained by the limited computation power available at the time. Circuitry was all tube-driven, and computation was all analog. Memory capacity was zero, so everything was in real time with no recall. No transistors, integrated circuits, or microprocessors.Possible, but the automation the F8U-3 had would have basically computed interception vectors automatically and relayed that into a steering dot.
From what I recall there were three hardpoints that could carry fuel, two could carry 370 gallons each, with the centerline carrying around 600 from what I remember (my memory's decent, but not perfect).Not exactly. It attached directly to the centerline hardpoint, replacing the centerline fuel tank, which meant a couple of wing pylons had to be rededicated from ordnance to fuel.
AN/APG-51?Our APQ72 did that too, through its (I forget the nomenclature) AP51?? fire control computer.
By range, you mean selecting the setting on the scope, then moving the radar antenna onto that spot and locking on?That's pretty much basic to any AI radar of its generation. The problem was that the system had many different modes and options that had to be manually selected, and the antenna had to be manually steered in azimuth, elevation, and range to highlight a target and enable lockon.
That was what both were designed for...The problem was that the steering dot led you directly to the weapons launch position for an immediate shot at the target locked on your screen, under the assumption that it automatically is hostile, and that you're using a forward quadrant flight path interception weapon like Sparrow. That's fine for shooting Bears or Bisons over the Arctic wastes
From what I remember, the reason for the ROE's was that we couldn't identify enemy IFF's (not sure if it was all USSR aircraft or exports), and we'd risk blowing up friendly aircraft. The F-8's seemed to do better in this regard because the plane was more maneuverable than the F-4, and they were more routinely trained in air-to-air combat because they were a gun-equipped aircraft.in the sauna of rice paddy land, AIM7s were notoriously unreliable, and the ROEs required visual ID of targets before shooting.
I thought the AIM-9J was the first to claim all-aspect capability?'Winders, though bragging of a frontal aspect capability
Yeah, it was a simple infrared seeker, it didn't care what heat-source it homed on...A loose 'winder in search of a heat source is not healthy for anybody nearby.
That was already an iffy proposition depending on aircraft.Now the problem here is that once you've crept up to VID range behind your bogie
There was actually a tactic used by F-104's called "sneak and peak". They'd come screaming in first, confirm ID, then the F-4's would go to work.So how to deal with this conundrum? Teamwork in the VID. Wingman becomes "eyeball" and moves in, and Lead becomes "shooter" and hangs back. Once the "MiGs" call is made, eyeball exits the Sidewinder's lethal cone by the most expeditious route possible, and shooter waits for a solid tone from the missile's seeker head before squeezing the trigger.
the same crappy Colt 20mm cannons (never installed in the test articles)
The F-8 never had guns installed?...Never installed at all: While Vought wanted to install them, the USN had little interest, and as the design went from the earliest configurations
To the prototype stage which saw
- The nose had its characteristic shape, but the intakes weren't swept forward initially
- Wing shape seemed established, but variable-incidence was the same early on as the F8U-1/2
- Radar was a modified AN/APQ-50 (this version was also used on the XF4H-1 prototypes), with a 24" radome.
- Armament was now: 3 x AAM-N-6, or 4 x AAM-N-7 (AIM-9), no air-to-ground provisions.
To the flight-test/pre-production stage, which saw...
- The ferri-intake was added
- Wing-incidence was lowered, flaperon deflections increased
- Armament remained the same
- Bypass doors added (possibly during flight test) which served as auxiliary intakes at low speed
- Reconfiguration of cooling air system: The original arrangement had less air to the engine, and more for cooling (acceleration was inadequate)
There also might have been some change to the tail-fin, but the point is that the reposition of equipment by this stage would likely have made any attempt to stuff guns in the plane impossible without a massive-redesign. The provision for the gun-pack, provided the USN pursued it (it seemed something the RN was more interested in than us), would have provided an effective armament as it was basically an M-61.
- Auxiliary intake added at base of tailfin (provided additional engine cooling capability)
- Inlet contours re-designed to deal with airflow disturbances that would occur at supersonic speeds, possibly at altitudes above 47000' while subsonic
- A new glass fabrication technique was used for the nose, to effectively allow for higher temperatures and provide a bullet-proof glass effect.
- Radar replaced from AN/APQ-50 to the AN/APQ-72 (32" radome used on F-4) or -74 (34" listed in some sources): Other changes included the USC-2 datalink, and a redesigned fire-control system.
- To keep the nose contours as close as possible to the earlier design: The radar antenna was repositioned further back in the nose; electronics were repositioned either behind the radar, or in the fuselage.
- Fuel capacity was actually reduced, but it was felt that the fuel capacity was still considered adequate
- Armament now changed to 3 x AAM-N-6 + 4 x AAM-N-7
- It was also possible to carry 4 x AAM-N-6 + 2 x AAM-N-7 as an alternate loadout
- There were proposals to carry up to 5 x AAM-N-6 (I guess the idea was similar to the F4H-1/F-4B's 6 x AAM-N-6 layout)
- Provision for air-to-ground included up to 6000 lb. of bombs
- There was a flush mount added that could include a 2000 lb. "special" (i.e. nuclear) store, an extra fuel-tank, or a gun-pack
- IRST added on the forward lower fuselage on at least one side, if not both.
- Nozzles extended slightly aft to permit a set of speed-brakes like the F-105's
The F-8 never had guns installed?...
Of course, because their IFF circuitry aped ours, and their SIGINT folks monitored Hillsborough and Red Crown, and the Hummers and Lima sites, and copied the codes assigned to US aircraft by controllers, and relayed them to GCI, who then had their interceptors mirror those codes, throwing the entire strike package into confusion.From what I remember, the reason for the ROE's was that we couldn't identify enemy IFF's
Those were probably Air Force birds carrying missiles newly arrived in theater that hadn't had time for the wiring insulation to deteriorate yet. In the heat and humidity of Yankee Station (the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club), AIM7s deteriorated mighty quick.there were cases where F-4's managed to score head-on shots on MiG's with AIM-7's. One of the first few kills of the war (6/17/65?) involved a pair of down the gullet shots
For a clean, light, flight test prepped plane, maybe. Out in the fleet you'd never see a combat equipped bird do that.the high thrust/weight ratio allowing a rather surprising sustained agility (around 7g)
Well you're right about the gyrate and tumble. That's pretty spectacular, but from inside the cockpit it's confusing, as it's not readily apparent whether you're stalled positive or negative, or what your net direction of rotation is. The trick is to focus on the AOA and Rate of Turn indicators, both of which are oscillating wildly, and average their fluctuations, while ignoring the visual and kinesthetic cues. Once you've determined the nature of the stall and the direction of rotation, apply the appropriate recovery technique. If you do this wrong, THEN you'll wind up in a blanked stabilator flat spin, and it's Martin Baker time.mishandling could cause a loss of control (from what I remember, it'd gyrate and tumble a whole lot, then it'd cut out into a flat spin that was unrecoverable)
This is what we worked on endlessly in the trainer, since every properly executed VID would result in the eyeball aircraft too close to shoot and fouling the target area for the shooter.the issue was being able to gain separation if they ended up too close for a missile-shot, while stopping the enemy from turning the tables, or getting away.
It was the first to claim 360° aspect, but a couple of its predecessors claimed limited forward aspect in addition to the traditional tail chase mode. I don't remember the nomenclature, but I do remember that the crews were a little dubious of those claims, and didn't trust that feature.I thought the AIM-9J was the first to claim all-aspect capability?
So their IFF circuitry mimicked ours because they were monitoring them, and relaying them to their interceptors?Of course, because their IFF circuitry aped ours, and their SIGINT folks monitored Hillsborough and Red Crown, and the Hummers and Lima sites, and copied the codes assigned to US aircraft by controllers, and relayed them to GCI, who then had their interceptors mirror those codes, throwing the entire strike package into confusion.
Nope, they were off the USS Midway...Those were probably Air Force birds carrying missiles newly arrived in theater that hadn't had time for the wiring insulation to deteriorate yet.
From what I remember, the plane would have it's missiles, no drop-tanks, and 60% fuel.For a clean, light, flight test prepped plane, maybe. Out in the fleet you'd never see a combat equipped bird do that.
That's good to know...This is what we worked on endlessly in the trainer, since every properly executed VID would result in the eyeball aircraft too close to shoot and fouling the target area for the shooter.
They were probably right...It was the first to claim 360° aspect, but a couple of its predecessors claimed limited forward aspect in addition to the traditional tail chase mode. I don't remember the nomenclature, but I do remember that the crews were a little dubious of those claims, and didn't trust that feature.
The F-8's generally had guns; the F8U-3 didn't.The F-8 never had guns installed?...