Royal Navy F-35B compared with anything [Archive]

gums

9th Oct 2018, 16:36

Salute!

@SAS, et al

The Vee definitely had problems at the end of Linebacker II, the "Twelve" Days of Christmas in 1972.

Flew three missions to Hanoi that battle and last one was a hoot. We had hit a wharehouse that alledgedly had missiles and apparently done good.

My last mission was a "sky puke" 28 or 29 December( aka Loran drop on the wing of a Double Ugly due to bad wx. Flight ahead of us tried visual and I have the audio of that goatrope). SA-2's were launched, but few guided and some went into a "chinese pinwheel" right after launch.

So our thots were they had used so many that they did not have enuf time to fully inspect and prep the new ones right from the crates. Worked for me, as I had seen one explode right in front of me just a few days before.

I would take all the PR about the missiles with a pinch of salt, except the AIM-9L ( ask the Falkland Harrier folks and Israeli pilots about that).

Gums sends...

SASless

9th Oct 2018, 22:33

Why was Ho Chi Miinh's house not bombed....there was a Command Bunker adjacent to the thing in Hanoi?

gums

10th Oct 2018, 00:49

Salute!

Many things were off limits in Hanoi.

We especially did not want to hit our buddies in prison. They even marked the hotel that Joan Baez was staying at.

We did not wish to "inflame" the Vee at that point, and all we wanted was to get our friends outta jail and then get outta the war.

On my visual mission, we rolled in from about 20K and this was my tgt:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/560x464/downtown_2_zpslfzli35n_4e2c808b58723e40533fac39b4997b7fb20c6 e66.jpg

We had 2 x 2000 pounders, two drops, two jamming pods and two AIM-9E. Only planes that did not refuel in or out.

Gums sends...

tdracer

10th Oct 2018, 01:27

Gums, the father of one of my buddies when I was in college was a BUFF pilot during Linebacker II (I think is was the 12 days of Christmas, 40 plus year memory is a bit fuzzy). On their first mission he figured it would be, ah, interesting since the NV had been preparing their SAM reception unimpeded for some time, so he brought a small cassette tape recorder along and turned it on during the bomb run (apparently a pretty big no-no).
He played that tape for a group of us Aero Engineering students once - pretty sobering stuff. IIRC they lost 3 Buffs from his flight on that mission :eek: According to him, the planners did some pretty dumb things on that mission with countermeasures but I won't elaborate.:rolleyes:
One thing that really stuck with me - after they'd turned for home and were out of harm's way, someone said 'I sure hope we don't have to go through that again'...

orca

10th Oct 2018, 06:15

This thread is brilliant. We started with F-35 and Harrier. We’ve got onto Hanoi and BUFFs and Linebacker without the (I thought inevitable) Pprune carping about thread drift. (A thread without drift is just a series of cut and pastes!) Well done us.

Gums, why 2 x 2000lb weapons? What was the target? (Or target construction...)

wondering

10th Oct 2018, 07:42

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/December%202012/1212linebacker.pdf

OT: Interesting how the receiving end promulgates a different tale. Extrapolating the B-52 loss rate (of course claiming a higher loss rate than in the article) and coming to the conclusion that the US would run out of B-52s in a fairly short amount of time had it chosen to continue the bombing compaign.

Onceapilot

10th Oct 2018, 10:10

orca, sure looks like Gums' DMPI is the concentration of railway lines and switch-points at the entrance/exit of that railyard?

OAP

Wingless Walrus

10th Oct 2018, 13:45

orca -
9L if not a game changer then at least a 'God send', especially when only carrying two! Far cry from F-15X!

I remember a very famous photo of a GR3 blasting along at about the same height as my shoe laces, that captured a photo almost looking up at an ARG soldier trying to swing a shoulder launched SAM in his direction.

gums -
were you flying A-7? Were Wild Weasels in on your mission?

Mogwi

10th Oct 2018, 15:24

I remember a very famous photo of a GR3 blasting along at about the same height as my shoe laces, that captured a photo almost looking up at an ARG soldier trying to swing a shoulder launched SAM in his direction.

What, this one?

gums

11th Oct 2018, 03:02

Salute!

First, TNX to those tolerating the war stories of an old attack pilot. I had almost 2500 hours in "A" planes compared to 700 or 800 in "F" jets, and none of those hours were in combat getting shot at.

Secondly, sorry about thread drift, but I flew one of the best fuel-to-miles-to-payload attack jets ever built, if not THE BEST. The SLUF. I have learned a lot about the Harrier on this thread, but I have to vote for the Stubbie for range and mission effectiveness My close friend who flew the Harrier in RAF and the Sluf ( A-7) also votes for the Stubbie ( aka F-35). I have a hard time with a Harrier taking an equal load for an equal distance and getting home with enuf gas for a go-around and second try.

Third, someone mentioned the new and greatest SAM threat. From experience, and several here have that, the Pk of the ground was 100%, and Pk of the best enema missile was maybe 30% on a good day and stoopid attack pilot.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before thread cutoff, I answer some folks. NOW Recovering from a major hurricane that hit 50 miles from me, and all we lost was electricity for a few hours due to new equipment the power company put in to help in emergencies!! LOL.
- My wing flew A-7D Slufs. 354th TFW. Weasels right down the flightline were there all the time.
- We carried 2 x 2000 lb MK-84 for first 7 or 8 missions. Then our high purple decided to count bombs versus effectiveness, so we carried 12 x Mk-82 500 pounders and no tanks the last 3 or 4 days (same loadout as a WW2 B-17). Had to refuel on the way in just to top off, and came back easily.
- My aimpoint photo shows the split in the rail line before the main railyard. The line came from across the river to the north. I was "green 16" ( 356th Green Demons) in the gaggle, and #15 was our Ops Officer. We were assigned to hit the fork, and we did as the last two folks down the chute. Our accuracy from a 8,000 foot drop at 30-45 degree dive was easily 50 meters or less, usually like 20 or 30. The guys in front hit the loading docks and such and not the freight on the switchyard.
- Finally, the Buff losses the first three nights were not satisfactory. I was on Sandy alert the morning after first downtown Buff missions. Walked in for our usual intell brief two hours before sunup and glanced at the SAR board that showed potential missions for we rescue folks. Holy Cow!! A half dozen planes and all within a few miles of Hanoi, and all were B-52's!! The game was changing, huh?
The initial raids had the buffs flying in predictable paths and from predictable bases and then predictable egrees routes and on an on. So a few wise folks at 7/13th AF had a "come to Jesus" meeting and fighter, recce, weasel and buff folks gor together. Hell, we had lost a dozen buffs and the Vee still had lottsa missiles.
The days after Christmas saw a big change in tactics and timing of the raids. Only thing the same was we mudbeaters still flew in brioad daylight and buffs flew at night.
Between us and the buffs, we ran the Vee outta good missiles.

Thanks for tolerating this old warrior.

Gums sends....

orca

11th Oct 2018, 12:18

Great stories Gums - just one point for you...that of going home with enough gas for a second try; a perennial argument in the Harrier, particularly when operating from the boat was whether it was better to keep ‘another go’ in the hip pocket - or would you rather have a better thrust margin and make the first go work.

I was always a ‘first go’ man myself - mainly because that’s how I was brought up - and you’ve got to land sometime, might as well be the first time! (Just my opinion having gone ‘non div’ a couple - of hundred - times!)

gums

11th Oct 2018, 13:36

Salute Orca!

I like the "do it right on first approach" as you do. Some sortie in your career when still a clueless nugget is gonna require that.

OTOH, there's that "get home/get on the ground at any cost" syndrome that has shortened many a career (permanently).

With all the cosmic nav gear we had in the Sluf, and the great fuel stats, the two big fears we fighter pilots had were diminished - we always knew where we were and we weren't worried about running outta gas, heh heh.

Gums sends...

GlobalNav

11th Oct 2018, 15:02

Thanks for tolerating this old warrior.

Gums sends....

Just wanna salute and say a hearty thank you to all you "old warriors"! You made me proud to wear Air Force blue.

Toadstool

11th Oct 2018, 15:52

Having been accused of being disrespectful to "old duffers" I have to say this thread drift is excellent. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading about your exploits. I'm not sure how we could handle the losses you guys had nowadays.

Much respect.

gums

11th Oct 2018, 23:01

Salute!

Besides the two I mentioned about landing fuel, someone's post mentionng y aimpoint is also missing.

Sheesh, if this is a Military Aviation forum, and we are comparing planes and range and such, who gives a ratis about thread drift. When the posters bitch and whine, then we can start a new thread, huh.

Gums sends...

tdracer

11th Oct 2018, 23:02

- Finally, the Buff losses the first three nights were not satisfactory. I was on Sandy alert the morning after first downtown Buff missions. Walked in for our usual intell brief two hours before sunup and glanced at the SAR board that showed potential missions for we rescue folks. Holy Cow!! A half dozen planes and all within a few miles of Hanoi, and all were B-52's!! The game was changing, huh?
The initial raids had the buffs flying in predictable paths and from predictable bases and then predictable egrees routes and on an on. So a few wise folks at 7/13th AF had a "come to Jesus" meeting and fighter, recce, weasel and buff folks gor together. Hell, we had lost a dozen buffs and the Vee still had lottsa missiles.
One of the things my buddy's dad said they did that was 'less than smart' was they sent the countermeasure aircraft in from different directions, but their paths intersected right where the BUFFs where going to drop their bomb loads. It didn't take a genius to figure out where the BUFFs were going - almost literally "X marked the spot". So the NV would saturate that area with missiles.

BVRAAM

11th Oct 2018, 23:37

orca

12th Oct 2018, 05:27

Hi Gums - one of my replies has clearly entered the vortex.

I was (as an ex-Harrier type) reading your words on recovery fuel and wondering what a second try was?😉

BEagle

12th Oct 2018, 07:07

Toadstool, thank you for your polite apology :ok:

On the subject of Buffs, we had a USAF exchange officer who'd flown them during the Vietnam war. Operating from Guam in cells of 3.

The lead aircraft would call the release and the other 2 would do so at the same time. For days my colleague had been in 'White' formation, but one day they were in 'Green'. Approaching the target area, he heard the transmission "White, releasing in 3 - 2 -1 - NOW!". Whereupon his aircraft began to shudder and his bombardier called on the interphone "Close call that, I only just got the bombs away in time!".

They were 15 min from the target and had just Buffed someone's jungle. No complaints were ever received, but my colleague said that the array of blue and red lights waiting to greet them at Guam was...impressive! His BN's feet hardly touched the ground during the subsequent debrief!

I had a trip in a Buff whilst at GV79 - interesting, but give me the Vulcan any day!

Pontius Navigator

12th Oct 2018, 07:15

BEagle, I wonder if that was just wings with bomb doors possibly closed?

Wingless Walrus

12th Oct 2018, 10:41

Gums -
thanks for sharing your stories; forever valuable. Its the kind of stuff I cant get enough of and its one of the things that gives this site its value, in my eyes: tales from experience. Your days of going 'down town' are valuable memories. Robin Olds said the 'V' had more flak than the Germans in WWII. Would we ever put an F-35 into flak filled skies?

In one of my prior comments, removed by admin, I referred to a picture of a low flying Harrier GR3 in the Falklands that was about head height. Low flying in some situations can be useful for tactical reasons, e.g. to show a presence; but I don't see a F-35 ever doing it.

PS. I have issues with my PM - apologies to anyone who has sent me a PM and received no reply.

Pontius Navigator

12th Oct 2018, 13:01

WW, why no SoF? A Reaper orbiting covertly above a target can bring rapid retribution but its presence is largely covert. There will be occasions when you want to reveal part of your hand, the surprise appearance of a threat can do just that.

however in a 'benign' environment you may not deploy an F35 at all when a Typhoon can do all the missions as effectively.

Wingless Walrus

12th Oct 2018, 13:48

PN -
I was just pondering various situations and talk of the highly lethal radar guided flak in Vietnam got me thinking. I also vaguely remember instances when, I think in Afghanistan, that fastjets were called in simply to make their presence felt by flying low near where hostile forces gathering/moving. My agile (some would say unstable!) mind then recollected something about a hostility in an African nation when Harriers were called in from the offshore carriers.

I also remember of way back when Buccaneers where called in off the carriers to do fly-by's over Belize; this 'flexing of the bicep' did the trick in dissuading neighbouring forces massing on the border from invading.

If some rag-tag 'army' that cant afford S400 but can buy lots of 40mm etc. flak was operating within range of our carriers that are only equipped with F-35, what would we do? If time was of the essence, would we risk F-35's in that situation? Albeit, a remote situation.

Just a thought that wafted into my empty head!

Pontius Navigator

12th Oct 2018, 14:40

In your last the idea of a show of force where the opposition had 14.5 and 23 mm, let alone 40 mm would probably never be contemplated.

In Lagos in 1985 something spooked the gunners and everything opened up. It was reported and a family was killed in a block of flats. There was then a news clamp down and nothing more heard.

In places like that, no show of force. Against a few AK and a machine gun a risk certainly but far lower - and don't do a second pass.

In Iraq, 90 years ago, ROE permitted show of force but no attack unless fired upon. Our hero spent 2 hours showing force when eventually he was fired upon. Within the ROE he duly bombed them. In the debrief the Int O and political officer were not amused :)

gums

12th Oct 2018, 14:53

Salute!

@ mod censors, this is about Harriers and other attack jets per thread title - delete if you wish

I never heard the story about a GR3 making an "show of force" pass. Good stuff, and we saw a few examples in that stoopid war I flew in when the earth was still cooling. In fact, a young Captain in our wing was rescued within 100 meters or so of the Vee when his mates used drop tanks and low passes to buy time ( F-100D from 3rd TFW at Bien Hoa). They had run outta 20mm. He was retrieved by a Army Cobra and in the 1990's became the USAF Chief of Staff. Flew with him during our time together at Hill when in Vipers.

Harrier fuel vs Stubbie fuel: [entry to satisfy mod censors about thread] Fuel to "hang around" is really nice to have. And our Sluf had it. I shall stick to my opinion that the F-35 can fly further and hang longer than any Harrier ever built, even if it carries extra gas in high-RCS external tanks. So when we showed up the grunts were happy. We could hit what we aimed at and we had hang time. The Double Ugly ( aka F-4 variants) would show up and scoot back to a nearby tanker, and we had plenty (tankers) because of them. You will not be able to do that in a less-then-permissible environment, meaning zilch long-range SAM's or enema interceptors. So better have your gas and plenty of it.

RE flak up North. Yep, it was really intense, and the Vee up there had plenty of practice. They also had better radar tracking then Reich air defense, from the central control down to the embedded radar. I only saw that for the few missions I flew Downtown, and first time was a 85mm site and had maybe 6 or 7 tubs firing in a coordinated "round-the-clock" sequence, with each tube firing maybe a tenth of a second apart. Looked like a canister CBU impact. The manual aimed guns were countless. In fact, after a few minutes of when a raid began there were layers of light gray, like clouds, from the self-destruct features going off. 23mm low, then 37mm, then 57mm and finally the 85's airbursting at 20,000 to 25,000 feet. As with the Falklands, more attack plnes were shot down by flak than missiles. I think the first time we saw a significant SAM shootdown ratio was the Yom Kippur episode. My Israeli students in the Viper said the best way to counter the SA-6 was to have tank taxi up and used its big gun, heh heh.

Gums sends...

glad rag

12th Oct 2018, 15:32

Fantastic posts, Gums. Thank you!

Seconded!. Here ya go gums, hope your not hard of hearing :}

CZmrHUaX7nE

I've watched this a few times now and the person who put it together did so with some panache.

I particularly appreciated Mr Ian Gillans scream during the catapult launch and the lyrics "racing like a fireball" with the SLUF at low level through the V hills.

Mogwi

12th Oct 2018, 16:11

gums

13th Oct 2018, 04:48

Salute!

Since the mods cut off our thread that began to explore may aspects of attack planes besides just the ability to land on a boat, maybe we could try again.

@ mods!!! PLZ outline specific rules so we can discuss stuff as long as we avoid foul language or pure political diatribes.

The F-35B is great follow-on to the Harrier, IMHO. But we need real world Harrier and F-35 pilots to jump in here. The armchair experts can rant and rave and such, but it's much better to hear from folks that operate the hardware. And folks with actual combat experience are the ones we should value.

First item of interest is how much gas should you have when making your landing? Enuf for just one shot at it? Enuf to have a go at it and divert? and so forth.... Actual military directives apply, but personal opinions/rationale is appreciated.

Gums sends...

orca

13th Oct 2018, 06:00

Morning Gums - the Harrier driver’s view. As far as landing fuel goes - enough so you don’t flame out getting to where ever the yellow coats put you.

No need to carry fuel for an extra visual pattern. It just means you have less thrust margin on the first approach so almost a self fulfilling prophecy.

UK Harrier minima were 1200lb remaining as you broke (pitch to you I think), 800lb in the hover alongside, 500lb at touchdown. Min useable 300lb. Some chose to bump up by a couple of hundred but tbh that only gave you a very short pattern if you messed up. I messed up once...I have a very clear memory of thinking I was going for a swim as the ‘flashing 250 lb a side lights’ came on when I’d just entered the groove. (Turned base). My error was to overshoot the ship first time round - mainly because one of the older guys had told me my decel to the hover was ‘wet’ and I needed to grow up...so I made the next one ‘sporty’ and completely over cooked it. Oops.

As far as diversion fuel goes - required until you can see the ship, or have reasonable confidence you’re going to see the ship - or you just need to dump to get below hover weight. So not required on VFR days. Required until good two way with Mum backed up by TACAN on moderate days - 750ft cloudbase and above. Rationale? At 250ft in the UK Low Flying system you are considered VFR if 500ft clear of cloud. On proper IFR Radar approach days - until Decision Height or MDA - if that was not possible due to performance it became a command decision to fly or not.

Please find a way of continuing the Vietnam stories, they’re excellent!

Small point of order - All UK F-35Bs are the property of the RAF - they just let the dark blue help out operating and maintaining them as a Joint Force. So Joint that they don’t even call themselves Joint - in that only organisations that are struggling to actually be Joint refer to themselves as Joint. Sort of thing.

gums

13th Oct 2018, 06:50

Salute Orca!

Well, now, a real attack puke and has some time in the Bug landing on really big boats, cat shots in a calm sea with no moon and visible lights, and.... neatstuff for the wannabe folks to do it for real. Ya gotta love it. A good Marconi HUD is always nice on a dark night.

We Yanks are always amazed how close/low the RAF and RN folks go with the fuel. So guess that's the one approach/try or else mentality. Considering the size of your island and all the old strips there, I guess that's "acceptable" for a divert. My friend Waldo with hisHarrier exchange tour said that the good thing about the GR3 ( tink that was the one) was you could put down on the soccer field a kilo away if things were tense. You would take flak from the boss, but the jet was still in one piece, and so were you, heh heh.

So USAF vs RAF standards WRT fuel are significant. Only time I ever saw variations was in combat, and then we reverted to your numbers. The grunts needed the ord when in close quarters, and I was fortunate to fly jets that had the gas ( A-7D) or could land almost any place ( the A-37).
++++++++
I have a hard time with the Harrier numbers posted by the Brits on these forums compared with the F-35 ( aka Stubby, when you see the thing with an F-15 next to it. Looks like the same plane but short and fat!) . Even if TSFC is better for that big motor in the Harrier, the Stubbie carries a helluva load of gas, all internal. So loiter should be great if you cruise at a reasonable speed someplace near the tgt or other area of interest. In other words, you don't runaround in supercriuse or charge in at 0.9M when 200 miles from your station/tgt/orbit. A lot of combat effectiveness depends upon the operaters and their procedures and skill. The public relations brochures are usually optimistic, but the mil spec numbers are usually bare minimums. Our experience in the A-7 and A-37 was we could beat the textbook range by 50% most days.

Good to converse, Orca. Need some old farts with Harrier time and hopefully some Falkland, Storm and such experience.

Gums sends...

P.S. In case anyone is intersted, I live 60 miles west of that big storm that just hit. Went thru VooDoo checkout training at Tyndall back in 1966. Our weak side of the storm was ho hum, and all is well here. Over there it is really bad.

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2018, 07:41

Gums, I found the original thread way down the page.

Anyway, based on 'anything' we used to have a 14% minimum landing fuel on one type during training which was reduced to 11% once qualified on type. Operational limits were just half that overhead but for practicable purposes I think 9% for wife and kids. Sometime later the fleet minimum was increased to 14%.

Diversion fuel OTOH was always interesting with the basic instruments to visual and climb out and transit on top. UK may have had lots of landing surfaces and in emergency the Harrier is best placed, but where open runways are concerned things can get very dark after 5pm. In worst case, landing short at the diversion or overflying a red/Amber base for a blue diversion may be a sensible option.

orca, you will remember the emergency landing on a Spainish Mership, what happened there? Had mother moved?

gums

13th Oct 2018, 07:54

Salute Pontius!!!

So good to hear from real aviators.

I like the percentage numbers you have put forward and will take them any day.

In some planes I flew, your best bet after a missed approach or abort was to just stay slow at same altitude and cruise over to a better field. In the U.S, that was 150 to 200 miles compared to the Motherland distances.

For the nuggets here, listen to what we old farts contribute. Take it or walk away, your choice. i learned more around the bar at the pub than in my briefings.

Gums sends...

orca

13th Oct 2018, 08:12

Hi Pontius,

Our intrepid SHAR driver couldn’t find Mum - I think due to a nav kit failure. Need Mogwi or someone to pitch in with what Suds was faced with. He settled for a landing on a freighter when the square search for Mum proved fruitless.

Sometimes we had to practice EMCON procedures - which I think Suds was doing but again not sure - I and two buddies were operating under EMCON one day - no radios and no radar within a certain distance of Mum. We used to get her position as an offset from a reference point over UHF then put Systems to stand by and come inbound. We’d been up on a sweep and had tanked, so Mum could have been anywhere! We got a completely duff offset, were out of gas on arrival - faced with empty sea - and (after a great call from lead ‘Has anyone got any ideas?’ Which Mum replied to with ‘Zip Lip’!!!!) We set off to try to land on a big merchant man we’d seen on the way in. As we streamed to land number 3 sensibly took a wide pattern and somehow saw Mum in the gloop. We all got back - shaking/ smiling etc with no fuel whatsoever.

Had to go straight to FlyCo so the grown ups could shout at us for breaking radio silence.

Very nearly 3 folk having a group swim somewhere in the Med!

Good times!

Just This Once...

13th Oct 2018, 09:36

Me on the boat with both the boat and pilots now exercising EMCON with polished ease after a few gulp moments at the start. Rotation of guys from the mainland to achieve various boat ticks. Boat and FlyCo continue with an iron-clad EMCON in rather average conditions. The #2 decides that enough was enough and that his formation leader had done all he could. Still no help from the boat so broadcasts "This game of hide and seek is over!". FlyCo replies a with a terse invite to his office on landing; #2 replies inviting the FlyCo to his bigger office if he made it aboard. Slight pause on the radio before the formation leader broadcast a simple "paper, scissors, rank" prompt.

To me the accent on the radio from #2 would have overcome the fly pro change. Is he a 3 star now?

orca

13th Oct 2018, 10:17

I do remember being incredibly disappointed when Mum told me that I couldn’t have a position because we were under EMCON and I was already in the over head.

Not professing to be an expert on everything - but being sure that the CVS didn’t have a teleport - I disagreed.

Cue a very frustrating conversation (which in itself probably did away with any benefit we had bought through EMCON) trying to explain to Mum that there were jets in the overhead but they were the previous formation - not us.

I have a feeling we were invited to FlyCo for that one too!

SammySu

13th Oct 2018, 10:27

Got to love ship drivers. Sat in the wait. If you maintain this DFC in about 5 miles you’ll be in a fog bank. Nothing. Ok you’re about to sail into a fogbank. Nothing. Shortly followed by ship sailing into the fog bank. Nothing but the top of the tacan mast left visible.....any chance you could reverse course and steam back the other way? Nope.
From flyco, divert ashore.
Fully appreciate the bigger surface/sub surface picture and that we were just a weapons system. Made it interesting sometimes. Especially with a jet with a fuel / no hover. And no fuel / can hover dichotomy.

orca

13th Oct 2018, 10:43

Play to your strengths - no fuel and hover every time! 😉

SammySu

13th Oct 2018, 10:49

Absolutely!

If you can VL then there’s always somewhere on the deck you can put it down, so no requirement to be able to hold off, go to the tanker, etc if someone ahead screws up.

Assuming the deck deck doesn’t disappear as you slot...

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2018, 18:47

Not fuel but somewhere well north, trying to find TG. The Norwegian Sea was empty that day. Only one radar contact in vicinity of ZZ but task group nix. Got to ZZ where there was one picket, cowboy? Who informed us on a low powered UHF that the TG was 95 miles west.

Another time our. UKADR mission was to set up a barrier to intercept two Bear D inbound to a TH in the SWAPPS. As we were mon-exercise they would not tell us where the fleet was. RED knew, Orange probably knew, Blue knew, but no one would tell Purple.

megan

13th Oct 2018, 23:38

Sub Lieutenant Ian Wilson and the Alraigo incident

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/oldies-amp-oddities-the-alraigo-incident-10366728/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD4oiBSXGDM

OK4Wire

14th Oct 2018, 05:03

PN, If my memory serves, the Distance/Bearing indicator maxed out at 99.9nm, so even if one was (much) further away, one thought it was only 100nm! I believe that was the case with Suds.

Senior Pilot

14th Oct 2018, 05:35

War story posts et al have been moved to this thread, so go for the lampswinging but take out the whinges on moderation; OK?

Any suggestion on a new thread title will also be considered :ok:

BEagle

14th Oct 2018, 08:34

On the topic of ship drivers:

Before the South Atlantic War, we were detached to Lossie to support a JMC. Sitting in a Phantom at cockpit readiness around dawn in winter wasn't much fun, but eventually we received the scramble message and a pair of us set of for CAP. Yet again the ship drivers had invented another complicated way of switching to their frequency... After tanking from a Victor, we set off for the CAP, only for Roger Waitout, that well known fishead wireless operator, to send us off to engage a bogey...

Which turned out to be the Victor from which we'd just refuelled!

Nothing else turned up, so eventually we were sent home. Usual JMC cluster...

My nav and I had to stay behind for the debrief, but OC 8 kindly flew us down to Leuchars in a Shacklebomber, then MT took us to Turnhouse. The debrief was...interesting! Some ops controller asked the SHAR team why they hadn't submitted some form or other - presumably the Navy's version of an ADMISREP. "If we knew what one of those was, we'd gladly send you one", they replied! The the E-3 team from Geilenkirchen said that any more blue-on-blues and they'd leave the area, fly to the nearest E-3 capable aerodrome, then fly back. Leaving the ships without any AEW for the time they were away. The Navy promised to do better - then when asked what the main operational threat was in the North Sea, the Dutch AF replied "Your f****** Navy!"...

The trip back from Turnhouse was fun - courtesy of YukAir in a Fokker Friendship to Norwich. First the wheels wouldn't come up until the pneumatic pressure had topped up, then we couldn't get into Leeds/Bradford, so diverted to East Midlands. The cabin crew looked rather happy at around 22:00, so we asked why. "We've just reached our guaranteed minimum overtime point", one stewardess replied. "Well, that sounds like 2 G&Ts please", I said - and bless her, she readily agreed!

Next time I did a JMC was after the South Atlantic War - this time in rather more comfort in the VC10K. I assumed that Roger Waitout and his gang would have been a bit better by then, but no. On working out from the rain forest of signals we'd been given where, when and on which frequency they wanted, off we went to the SW Apps for the fun and games to begin..

My Captain (the late 'Bear') summed up our frustration quite admirably "That's the 3rd time you've flown us into French airspace and they're getting rather cross. Do it once more and we'll RTB - buck up or we push off!".

Universal JMC debrief:

1. Only 1% of tasking signals have any relevance.
2. They've invented yet another way of frequency assignment - have they never heard of Fighter Studs (later 'TAD's?).
3. The ship drivers are never where they said they'd be.
4. The PIM is a work of fiction.
5. There are never any targets.
6. They always want us to launch at some 0-dark-00 hour.
7. It was no better than last time!

Wingless Walrus

14th Oct 2018, 12:04

Aye, I remember the HUD film at the debrief of the 1st May raid on Stanley showing our rad-alts flicking between 5 and 15ft on the run-in over the dunes. Just seemed safer down there somehow. The climb to 150ft to drop the clusters was a bit scary because you could then see all the other flak!

Ho-hum!

Mogwi -
Thanks for comment #12, that is the photo. Caption competition: "Say cheese!" or "Wakey, wakey!" or "drop your "blank" and grab your socks". You could replace 'socks' with 'Blowpipe' but that sounds even worse. That photo gives an inkling of just how close to death, of one sort or another, Harrier pilots were. Split seconds. Blowpipe SAM could be anywhere anytime.

I read about those Stanley low run in's; its a good job you didn't sneeze! Unusual way to cut the grass, to say the least; but it kept you alive (just); sadly, others not so lucky. I can imagine how 'hot' the flak was; bearing your backside at 150ft must have felt like being a big yellow plastic duck in a fairground shooting gallery. Hobson's choice with absolutely no margin for error. Precision like threading a needle at 600mph.

Hopefully with modern stand-off weapons, such heroic headlong charges into the jaws of death will be minimised in the future.

I can never hear enough about what it was like down there; thanks for giving a glimpse here.

I think it really important for all those that have been 'there', wherever 'there' is, to share their experiences in written form, to benefit those not lucky enough to hear them in person and to preserve them for future generations to understand, at least a little, of what it was like. Priceless.

orca

14th Oct 2018, 12:34

Interesting that the PI decided that the 2 Weapons were a Blowpipe and a SA-7 in such close proximity - I’m assuming the Argentine troops did actually use both?

An SA-7 ended up in the Air Warfare building at Yeovilton - I think from the South Atlantic.

glad rag

14th Oct 2018, 13:53

Hmm $10 million to rebuild to A7F superSLUF

The A-7F concept would take the well-known A-7 Corsair II platform and bring its design almost full circle by lengthening the standard A-7 fuselage by four feet, in order to accommodate the powerful Pratt & Whitney F100-220 turbofan – the same engine in the F-15 – in the place of the A-7's older TF-41 turbofan. This would bring the A-7′s thrust up from 14,500lbs to 26,000lbs and would feature an afterburner, a component missing on the A-7′s family tree since the F-8 Crusader.

This new arrangement would allow the A-7F to reach speeds well above Mach one, and would effectively turn America's no-nonsense bomb-truck into an affordable high-speed deep striker. Along with these developments, the SLUF would probably lose its humble and disparaging nickname, as the A-7F was anything but slow.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/can-we-learn-something-from-the-defunct-a-7f-strikefig-1591155307

gums

14th Oct 2018, 15:47

Salute!

I take it Mog was there way down south in GR3. Huh?

If so, need more about the ultra-low runs. We colonists gave up when it became apparent that the Pk of the Earth was higher than the Pk of the SA-2 or aimed flak if you were way below 200 or 300 feet. And then ten years later the IAF encountered the SA-6. My Israeli studs in the only group they ever sent to Hill for Viper training were all Yom Kippur vets except for the young guy ( late became astronaut and bit bullet in Columbi, but was a player for the Iraq nuke attack). They related how lethal that doppler-guided missile was, but USAF still had the 200 foot floor for 99% of the time .

So a few years later I led a two-ship at Red Flag and sure enuf, a pesky SA-6 popped up and tracked us down at 200 feet. GASP! Only way we beat it was getting small hills between us and the radar unit, plus "beaming it" as the IAF told us. The debrief film showed us being tracked, but before a launch we would fly behind a hill and it broke lock. We were soon outta range, as at 540 knots you can build distance in short order, heh heh. 'course the Thuds and 'vaarks came in at 600 knots, and then went out "fast", !
+++++++++++++++++++++==

Later, and our sister counties just 30 to 50 miles east are in dire straits after the visit from Michael. Damned storm wiper out the cottage my bride and I rented a hundred years ago when I went thru VooDoo training at Tyndall. Was a neat place about 100 yards from the shoreline.

Gums sends...

glad rag

14th Oct 2018, 16:06

I take it Mog was there way down south in GR3. Huh?

NOPE!

Still the classic Harrier mind. Fast and Small.

A7[F] vs 35B as a bomb truck though..:D

ORAC

14th Oct 2018, 18:07

the SLUF would probably lose its humble and disparaging nickname, as the A-7F was anything but slow. I was always taught it stood for Sort Little Ugly F****** as opposed to the B-52 being the Big Ugly F*******. Nothing speed related.

How did the A-7 compare to the A-5 as far as the crews were concerned? Accepting the vastly different roles.

gums

14th Oct 2018, 19:38

Salute!

Sluf was single seat, single engine. It and the A-6 Intruder replaced the A-1 and A-4 for the USN, allowing the F-4 types to be CAP/Sweep and a lot less pig iron missions. The Sluf replaced the A-1, A-37,F-100 and F-105 in USAF. F-4's still carried iron as they had so many of them and only 72 Slufs at Korat. We also had F-111 'vaarks at Tahkli for Linebacker in 1972. They flew mainly at night.

A-5's became RA-5 recce birds within a few short years and had a crew of two. Never dropped a bomb, best I can tell. It was very fast, and apparently a great recce platform. Never ran into anyone that flew the beast.

Both the Intruder and Sluf were subsonic designs, although the Sluf could get above the mach in a dive without ripping the wings off, and FCF pilots would occasionally "boom" Myrtle Beach. I personally exceeded the redline on that Hanoi mission with the aimpoint depiction. Forgot to pull off power enuf and noticed very slow pitch rate on dive recovery, then saw airspeed. That was my first mission with the 2,000 pounders on parent racks, and was a very clean load re: drag. Normally, we did not reduce power very much in a dive because of the drag or if we were dropping manually and needed to hit angle, speed and altitude.

The dive toss computer was extremely accurate, and only the A-1 and A-37 compared. Actual BDA from FAC's gave us 15 meter CEP, as well as for the A-37. So you can see why the grunts liked us for troops in contact events. Our CEP was documented in Corona Harvest reports and also referenced in the A-37 book, "Dragonfly". On one mission we had in Laos to hit a artillery tube, the Raven FAC was giving corrections using bomb crater widths!! ( Mk-82 slicks) The second and subsequent pass accuracy with the Sluf was eye-watering. And then the Viper came along a few years later.

The Sluf and Intruder both had "legs" and did not require all the tankers that the Double Ugly needed. So we carried 10 x Mk-82 from Korat Thailand to places near Saigon, and then dropped in singles!! 350 nm +/-, and we could hold for 10 or 15 milutes. The Hanoi mission was a tad over 400 nm, but one pass, haul ass.

Man, those were the days, and I relish my time in three planes of the era.

Gums sends...

Pontius Navigator

15th Oct 2018, 08:32

Man, those were the days, and I relish my time in three planes of the era.

Bet it gets better with each surviving year too ☺

Vzlet

15th Oct 2018, 11:39

Regarding Harriers down low, I was very pleased to witness this two days ago:
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x534/31452246648_494a31223d_c_59f104f1192e93a2f27a43eeb41615ae22c 3c6a0.jpg

Wingless Walrus

15th Oct 2018, 13:11

Gums -
The A-7 sounds like it had no tricky habits; the F-35 thanks to all its technology is meant to be one of the easiest fighters to fly. Even in the hover over ship it looks rock-steady, not the slightest twitch.

The SLUF seems to have been one of the most versatile and effective aircraft made but lived in the shadow of the supersonic fighters (as Harrier did). As well as a highly effective bomber, it served on land and sea and I heard the A-7 was highly capable in air-air close-in scenario. I read USN A-7 pilots were highly skilled in dogfights and 'roughed' up the 'double-uglies' who initially relied upon their missiles to do the dogfighting for them (being fair to them it was the policy taught early on, based on overzealous claims from makers of the wonder weapons).

How did you find learning to fly the A-7? Any tricky behaviour? Did you get good air-air training? Do you think they could have fitted a bigger radar on it to enhance air-air ops? Was there anything that could have been done to make it better?

Interesting technical info on A-7:
"The Vought A-7 Attack Fighter"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ5v8SvOdA0

A-7 at sea:
"Vought A-7 Corsair II - "Short Little Ugly F@#?$r""
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKDNyYSFB3I

Visceral clips of fastjets at a few feet off the ground; the initial clip gives a good idea of what Mogwi was doing on 1st May 1982, whilst being shot at and trying to hit the target; a clip about 7:30 shows a 'Double Ugly with its left wing tip almost in the troughs of the waves (and its a calm sea!):
"Fighter Jets Low Flyover Most Shocking Moments - Part 2"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vz5v4GbGr0

MPN11

15th Oct 2018, 14:13

cargosales

15th Oct 2018, 14:32

If we're into thread drift ..

One of the early comments on this thread mentioned using a 'show of force' to persuade people not to do anything silly.. It wasn't an attack or close support aircraft but I distinctly remember seeing the camera footage when the Buccs went in over Beirut (84?) and were flying around the various masts and aerials in the city. IIRC, the message being sent was 'received and understood'.

Back to the F-35 though, or any other aircraft you care to name .. you can surely have all the countermeasures you like onboard but they count for nothing when in the sights of someone armed with nothing more than a manually aimed and fired rifle or machine gun. In the Falklands, didn't a Para bring down an A-4 with a GMPG? Even if he admitted he was aiming for the first one but ended up bringing down the no.2. And even if it was a four ship, rather than two, that's a 25% attrition rate .. which isn't great when you've only a handful of aircraft to start with.

gums

15th Oct 2018, 15:06

Salute!

Cargo has it right.

We lost more Thuds and F-4 to ack than SA-2 missiles. My only serious damage in the A-37 and resulting "crash landing" was AK-47 rounds that ruptured my fuel lines and started an engine fire.

Gums sends...

Pontius Navigator

15th Oct 2018, 15:27

Gums, did you have a fire extinguisher?

Mogwi

15th Oct 2018, 15:35

Reading all this stuff and watching the vidoes reinforces my perception that the RN was right to bin me from flying training at an early stage back in the 60s. I am 100% not wired this way, and have an inevitably grudging respect for those who are. However, becoming a sh1t-hot, can-do, Mil ATCO was a reasonable substitute ... especially when the chips were down for you guys up there.

Anyone up for a mutual respect group hug? Naah ... what pilot would hug an ATCO in public, unless it was female? :)

Not usually one for the man-hugs but there was a time in the late 80's that I had a SHAR engine quit at FL400 during an air-test over Cornwall. Rapid decompression followed by Christmas tree of warnings, HUD and radar out, huuuuge noise from intakes spilling air around the cockpit and much flatulence! My very high-pitched Mayday call was answered by a calm, almost nonchalant controller at London Mil "Yeovil XX, Mayday acknowledged, St Mawgan is 180/20 miles and it will relight about FL230".

"How the hell do you know that" quoth I.

"Don't worry" was the reply, "I've had loads of these!"

Sure enough, he was right and I made it home for my first date with the future Mrs Mog. That would have justified a hug!!

Mog

gums

15th Oct 2018, 17:24

Salute!

No, PN, we had no extinuisher (sp?). My flight lead told me the motor was smoking and suggested I shut it down. Being a nugget, and smelling the fuel, I obeyed. Had made another pass after fuel warning light was blinking and fumes were bad, The grunts needed CBU and I made last pass before telling lead I had a problem.

Ran outta gas in 20 miles and deadsticked into Saigon international airport.

Gums sends...

downsizer

15th Oct 2018, 18:55

MPN11

15th Oct 2018, 19:48

Mogwi ... Love it!! :)

Yeah, we did tend to see a lot of 'stuff' and learned quite a bit about whet happened 'up there'.

Pontius Navigator

15th Oct 2018, 20:44

Gums, same as the 'tomb then. I can still remember the fire drill after 50 years.

Wingless Walrus

15th Oct 2018, 23:52

Reading all this stuff and watching the videos reinforces my perception that the RN was right to bin me from flying training at an early stage back in the 60s.

I love these tales of 'everyday' emergencies. I will never moan about getting a flat tyre again.

MPN11 -
If its any consolation, I was 'shown the door' at an even earlier stage; passed both RAF and RN pilot selection and did not start training for either. That story I think I alluded to in one of my few threads.

Spent about 15 years on combat aircraft projects with defence companies. The systems I find fascinating especially the weapons systems. They are incredibly complex machines and a real marvel at the colossal effort needed to do this safely and reliably.

Spent a good chunk of time on the Typhoon. The amount of data flowing through its 'veins' every second is phenomenal. A lecture given by a test pilot during development highlighted that in a certain part of the flight envelope, if the FCS lost control then the unstable Typhoon would rip itself apart in under 1.5 seconds; faster than the pilot could safely eject back then.

One other thing that sticks in my mind is the first tests of the canopy jettison. They had a full size cockpit and canopy setup with a pilot manikin sat in it. They did their calcs and estimated the canopy would fly backwards at a max height of 'H'. They erected a net to some height exceeding 'H' by a good margin, to ensure the jettisoned canopy didn't fly over the net and into the river sands behind. They rigged it all up, hit the big red button, the canopy explosive jettison charges fired and blew the canopy clean over the net! When they inspected the cockpit they found the pilot manikin intact except for its arms that had been burnt off. They pack a bit less gunpowder in there nowadays. Shows the value of testing though; even today computers can only do so much. Been out of that world for a long time now. Very hard work, lots of 6-7 day weeks, shifts, late hours and taking work home but very rewarding and interesting. Learned a lot there and met some excellent people; people really are the key.

Had a quick look at AAA. Some deadly systems out there. Didn't see many prices except for a 2009 estimate of $10+million for Type 87 Twin 35mm Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery System (has a range of 4km and a radar).
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=117

As a ballpark figure, that aint that cheap. SPAAGs (Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery Gun) I imagine would be quite vulnerable in the modern battle space although I have read that they are coming back into favour. But with modern sensors and lots of drones to carry them are they not easily spotted? e.g. thermal imaging, etc.

Found some interesting info on AAA in Wiki and a few others. The performance of high powered AAA is impressive. If they can be well 'hidden' in the modern battle space they have a very effective track record. Some of the older AAA are also highly effective to ranges of 8km and beyond.

List of anti-aircraft weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-aircraft_weapons

ZSU-57-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-57-2
57mm
Max. range about 7km
Weapon aiming: manual/visual
Platform: self-propelled

Used in several conflicts including Vietnam and the Gulf War 1.
GW-1: Raid on airbase, shot down Tornado GR1 of four aircraft; later same day AAA downed GR1 and damaged three more.

"New Russian-made Derivatsiya-PVO 57mm anti-aircraft artillery system ready for tests in 2017"
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_russian-made_derivatsiya-pvo_57mm_anti-aircraft_artillery_system_ready_for_tests_in_2017_12306161.h tml

Useful source:
"Weaponsystems.net"
Menu Weaponsystems.net (http://weaponsystems.net/menu/ee00%20-%20AIRDEFENCE.html)

SPAAGs in action; you really wouldn't want to be in range of these:
"Top 10 BEST Self Propelled Anti Air GUN SPAAG - 2016"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kejXE7u2RDo

glad rag

16th Oct 2018, 10:56

I love these tales of 'everyday' emergencies. I will never moan about getting a flat tyre again.

MPN11 -
If its any consolation, I was 'shown the door' at an even earlier stage; passed both RAF and RN pilot selection and did not start training for either. That story I think I alluded to in one of my few threads.

Spent about 15 years on combat aircraft projects with defence companies. The systems I find fascinating especially the weapons systems. They are incredibly complex machines and a real marvel at the colossal effort needed to do this safely and reliably.

Spent a good chunk of time on the Typhoon. The amount of data flowing through its 'veins' every second is phenomenal. A lecture given by a test pilot during development highlighted that in a certain part of the flight envelope, if the FCS lost control then the unstable Typhoon would rip itself apart in under 1.5 seconds; faster than the pilot could safely eject back then.

One other thing that sticks in my mind is the first tests of the canopy jettison. They had a full size cockpit and canopy setup with a pilot manikin sat in it. They did their calcs and estimated the canopy would fly backwards at a max height of 'H'. They erected a net to some height exceeding 'H' by a good margin, to ensure the jettisoned canopy didn't fly over the net and into the river sands behind. They rigged it all up, hit the big red button, the canopy explosive jettison charges fired and blew the canopy clean over the net! When they inspected the cockpit they found the pilot manikin intact except for its arms that had been burnt off. They pack a bit less gunpowder in there nowadays. Shows the value of testing though; even today computers can only do so much. Been out of that world for a long time now. Very hard work, lots of 6-7 day weeks, shifts, late hours and taking work home but very rewarding and interesting. Learned a lot there and met some excellent people; people really are the key.

Had a quick look at AAA. Some deadly systems out there. Didn't see many prices except for a 2009 estimate of $10+million for Type 87 Twin 35mm Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery System (has a range of 4km and a radar).
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=117

As a ballpark figure, that aint that cheap. SPAAGs (Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery Gun) I imagine would be quite vulnerable in the modern battle space although I have read that they are coming back into favour. But with modern sensors and lots of drones to carry them are they not easily spotted? e.g. thermal imaging, etc.

Found some interesting info on AAA in Wiki and a few others. The performance of high powered AAA is impressive. If they can be well 'hidden' in the modern battle space they have a very effective track record. Some of the older AAA are also highly effective to ranges of 8km and beyond.

List of anti-aircraft weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-aircraft_weapons

ZSU-57-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-57-2
57mm
Max. range about 7km
Weapon aiming: manual/visual
Platform: self-propelled

Used in several conflicts including Vietnam and the Gulf War 1.
GW-1: Raid on airbase, shot down Tornado GR1 of four aircraft; later same day AAA downed GR1 and damaged three more.

"New Russian-made Derivatsiya-PVO 57mm anti-aircraft artillery system ready for tests in 2017"
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_russian-made_derivatsiya-pvo_57mm_anti-aircraft_artillery_system_ready_for_tests_in_2017_12306161.h tml

Useful source:
"Weaponsystems.net"
Menu Weaponsystems.net (http://weaponsystems.net/menu/ee00%20-%20AIRDEFENCE.html)

SPAAGs in action; you really wouldn't want to be in range of these:
"Top 10 BEST Self Propelled Anti Air GUN SPAAG - 2016"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kejXE7u2RDo

Well as it's a naval thread..

0kUdh3ofZBQ

Pontius Navigator

16th Oct 2018, 12:32

The problem with self propelled guns is the unit cost versus the cost of their targets.

If guns be cheaper than the aircraft and their missiles you can afford more guns. Stumbling across a ZSU23-4 could spoil your whole day. The counter of course is to fly above the GEZ which of course puts you into the MEZ.

orca

16th Oct 2018, 12:50

There are other counters PN (I know - you know, I get it!). Stay behind hill, jam the radar, exceed the crossing rate, fly lower than min engagement height, fly below...or just kill them!

Not for the faint of heart but doable.

Pontius Navigator

16th Oct 2018, 16:09

orca, your last, my first, if they have more tubes than you have assets they win. Of course it is not 1-1+ as the gun/missile PK is probably If i 0.1-0.25 hence the old adage the bomber (at least one) will always get through.

MPN11

16th Oct 2018, 16:46

Interesting points. Of course, the replacement/redeployment equations tend to skew the comparison a bit. ;)

The Sovs churned out T-34s at a staggering rate. Hiw long to replace an F-35?

Pontius Navigator

16th Oct 2018, 18:11

MPN, it is not just the prime system, look at Bloodhound, we now discover 2 shots per launcher.

Drop tanks, how many could we afford to drop before the whole mission plan has to be recast?

I think GW1 ate up all the war stock JP233.

It must make the beanies weep when all the Fireflash, Firesteak, Red Top, 9D, AIM7 etc are all junked. "But you didn't need them, do you can only have one set each"

MPN11

16th Oct 2018, 18:20

Drop tanks is a good question. We had a hangar full of them at Watton, LK for the use of. Mate and I assisted in their maintenace program by going in and shooting wood pigeons one day, as they were crapping on the kit!

Of course GW1 JP233 war stock was what it was for. Going Medium Level resolved that problem, leading to the 1,000 lb problem which the brave Belgians didn’t help with. ISTR they didn’t even have their declared NATO war stocks.

gums

16th Oct 2018, 22:26

Salute!

Tanks and guns

The old drop tanks have gone and they did so for USAF and USN and USMC back in the 1960's. Only time we saw "drop" tanks actually drop was up near Hanoi, and one day a flight leader calmlyj broadcast of the strike frew, "watch out for falling tanks". Seems a mig had smoked an F-4 and all were on alert. They normally did not mix it up when we were within 10 or 15 miles of Downtown due to the Sams and AAA. Problem ain't cheap "paper" tanks like they used in WW2 and Korea. It's that they take up a store station, and we had perfected the refueling during the late 50's. So the tanks we wound up with were sturdy and expensive. Oh well.

Our sole remaining A-37 squad got to see the ZSU23-4 at An Loc in 1972 during the "Spring Invasion" or whtever they called it. It was the last dedicated USAF CAS outfit and was only 40 miles away. We lost more planes there in a few weeks than any other battle that the plane was in-country ( 1967 - 1972). USMC A-4's were last mudbeaters in-country and eparted days after our A-37 squad in October.

The tactic to beat the ZSU if there were only a couple was to have two or more planes in a circle and hit the thing when he was firing at one of your buddies!!! Brutal, but it worked. Our little jet was hard to hit and had the lowest loss rate of anything during the war - -- 23 or so outta 75,000 sorties and 13 or 14 fatal ( 4 of those the first year). No SA-7 losses, as a hard turn would beat it if your buddy called the launch. We didn't have flares.

The biggie about dueling with guns is they have relatively simple aiming solutions because attacking planes are coming right at them. This is for basic gravity bombs, or strafe or rockets and such. The missiles are a different matter, as we found out in the Falklands and one U.S. loss in the Gulf.

Gums sends...