Tag:

aircraft

How two tiny dents on the SR-71 nose stopped surface-to-air missiles from hitting the Blackbird

by Till Daisd June 11, 2024

The SR-71 Blackbird

The US Air Force (USAF) created the SR-71 Blackbird in the 1960s; it was a plane that could fly at a speed greater than three times the sound made by its own engines.

The SR-71 spy plane held the record for being the fastest and highest-flying operational aircraft in the world for about 24 years. At a speed of Mach 3+, it could cover 100,000 square miles of Earth’s surface per hour while flying at 80,000 feet. In the unlikely event that an enemy attempted to bring it down with a missile, the Blackbird just needed to accelerate and outpace it.

The SR-71’s engineering was so advanced that new tools had to be designed to build it.

Dents on the SR-71 Blackbird Nose

Former SR-71 RSO Richard “Butch” Sheffield (Butch was his nickname because of his haircut that he had back in the 60s) used to point to the nose of the SR-71 Blackbird. He would point to the dimples and say, “This is really important, but I can’t talk about it.”

He would smile.

Here’s how two little Dents placed on the Nose of the SR-71 prevented Surface-to-air Missiles from Scoring any Hit on the Blackbird — Richard Butch Sheffield and Bob Spencer

In the SR-71, he and Bob Spencer executed one of the most crucial missions when they intercepted an SA-5 missile that was flying just inches from the Russian border. Receiving that signal was important to the SR-71’s defense. An SR-71 was never shot down; none ever got close. It was impossible due to defense and speed.

According to former Blackbird pilot Col. Richard H. Graham’s book SR-71 The Complete Illustrated History of THE BLACKBIRD The World’s Highest, Fastest Plane, the nose section allowed the SR-71 to have radar-imaging capability with the advanced synthetic aperture radar system (ASARS), photographic imagery with the optical bar camera (OBC), or a ballast installed. The nose section was held on by faun-massive fasteners.

The Dents that prevented Surface-to-air Missiles from Scoring any Hit on the SR-71 Blackbird

What are those two little dents on the nose of the SR-71 Blackbird?

‘I’m assuming you’re talking about the two “dents” in the chines at the front part of the nose, one on each side? Those aren’t dents, those were put there on purpose for the more advanced ECM systems the Blackbird got in the ’70s and ‘80s,’ says Kelly Pedron, an aviation expert, on Quora.

‘There weren’t any good places to put the ECM receivers in the front of the aircraft, so those “dents” were put in the chine to allow the installation of ECM receivers there. If you’ll notice, the flat part of the “dent” is facing about 60 degrees forward, in order to cover that quadrant of the airspace around the aircraft. Earlier models of the SR, including the A-12, were more concerned with attack radar signals from the rear, so front-mounted ECM receivers weren’t as necessary at the time. With the advent of more advanced Soviet SAM systems, like the S-200 and S-300, a forward warning receiver and jammer were required, hence the development of the so-called ECM “dents” in the nose.’

Pedron concludes;

‘So, yes, those were put there on purpose; nobody accidentally taxied an SR-71 into a solid object.’

Check out Habubrats SR-71’s Twitter profile and Born into the Wilde Blue Yonder‘s Facebook page for further Blackbird photos and stories.

Photo by Linda Sheffield Miller and U.S. Air Force

June 11, 2024 0 comment

History

The AMST program failed to replace the C-130 Hercules

by Till Daisd June 10, 2024

written by Till Daisd

McDonnell Douglas YC-15 Vs Boeing YC-14

A tactical transport aircraft with four engines designed for short takeoff and landing (STOL) was the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) YC-15. It was McDonnell Douglas’ entry in the competition for the Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST), which was held to replace the USAF’s main STOL tactical transport, the Lockheed C-130 Hercules. A pair of YC-15s were constructed, including a 110-foot (S/N 72-1876) and a 132-foot (S/N 72-1875) wingspan.

When it made its maiden flight in 1976, the Boeing YC-14 represented a significant aviation milestone. This aircraft represented numerous firsts in aircraft design, prominent among them being the use of boundary-layer control in conjunction with upper-surface blowing, which caused the jet engine flow to turn downward and enabled flight at low airspeeds.

McDonnell Douglas YC-15 pilot recalls AMST program failing to replace the C-130 Hercules — Boeing YC-14

However, neither the YC-15 nor the YC-14 were put into production, even though the successful C-17 Globemaster III was built using the YC-15’s basic design.

AMST program termination

Ron Wagner, former USAF pilot in the Presidential Wing at Andrews AFB, recalls on Quora;

‘I flew one of the prototypes of the AMST, which was intended to produce a replacement for the C-130. The AMST proposal was issued on November 10, 1972. Boeing responded with the YC-14.

‘I was familiar with the YC-15 response from McDonnel-Douglas, which first flew on August 26, 1975. A second prototype flew in December 1975. The second one had a longer wingspan and was painted in camouflage colors.

‘The program ended in December 1979. […] I got to fly the cool-looking camouflaged YC-15 when it was at Andrews Air Force Base sometime in late 1978/early 1979. I left Andrews in January 1980, which was AFTER the AMST program ended.

‘McDonnell Douglas took the second prototype to Andrews to impress Pentagon generals and members of Congress in a final push for a contract. It failed to get any orders.’

McDonnell Douglas YC-15 flight

He continues;

‘I flew it only locally around Andrews, making the takeoff and flying around the area for a bit. It used a DC-10 cockpit but had the ankle-height windows you see in the C-130. That was the best view I ever got of my home, local flying area. Cool view. The test pilot let me set up the approach, but being one of only two in the world, he took the landing himself.

‘I later saw and photographed the first prototype at “the Boneyard” in Arizona. But they eventually scrapped it.

‘This is the one I flew. Note the cool lower windows.

‘That must have been interesting to have been involved in upgrading the YC-15 to the C-17. The only 4-engine time I have in my 10,000+ hours is the 15 minutes I flew the YC-15. It handled like a small plane, really fun to fly.

The C-130 Endures

‘Now, more than 51 years after the AMST proposal was issued and 44 years after that project was canceled, Lockheed is still delivering new C-130s.’

Wagner concludes;

‘Think of this bizarre fact: When the C-130 was 18 years old, the USAF issued a proposal to replace it, which actually sounds about right for the timing. But they didn’t buy it and the C-130 will be 70 years old in August of this year and new ones are still on backorder.’

Photo by U.S. Air Force and Mike Freer via Wikipedia

June 10, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

The only B-47 that that took off from Little Rock AFB to the UK across the Atlantic Ocean

by Till Daisd June 9, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The B-47 Stratojet

The first XB-47 prototype, which was built to fulfill a 1944 need, flew in December 1947 and outperformed its rivals. It had sweeping wings, jet engines in underwing pods, main landing gear located on the fuselage, and automated systems that reduced the crew number to three, among many other cutting-edge technologies for the period.

The B-47 started to replace the B-29 and B-50 propeller-driven bombers in May 1951 in the medium bomber units of the US Air Force’s Strategic Air Command (SAC). The B-47’s maximum speed was more than 200 mph faster than the aircraft it replaced, even though it could carry roughly the same bomb tonnage.

45 B-47s took off from Little Rock AFB to the UK, only one made it across the Atlantic Ocean

45 B-47s were launched from Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB) to the United Kingdom in 1956 as part of a bomb run exercise. All except one of the B-47s returned to the United States after crossing the Atlantic. Lieutenant Richard “Butch” Sheffield, a B-47 navigator and bombardier, was prepared to follow. He needed to learn how to lead rapidly.

He recalls in his unpublished book, “The Very First:”

‘As we prepared to fly to the UK, my aircraft and crew were to be the fifth aircraft in a flight of five. I believe that because I was the lowest-ranking navigator with the least experience, they did not want me to have to navigate the Atlantic as lead or alone.

‘We took off from Little Rock, all forty-five B-47s, and flew up to Northern New York State to refuel from KC-97 tankers flying at fifteen thousand feet. We were at thirty-five-thousand feet. Tankers put out a radar signal that we could identify on our radar screen. Each set of tankers, nine different sets, put signals that were almost alike but not. I saw our signal and told the aircraft commander (AC). He relayed to the lead aircraft that we had the tankers that we were to refuel with, and they didn’t believe him.

‘As we overflew them, we went over twice as fast and twenty thousand feet above them. My AC asked me if I was sure, and I said yes. He then told the lead, you are going to miss them; they are right below us now. Once again, they didn’t believe him, or I guess they didn’t believe that a Lieutenant could find the tankers from among the many radar signals.’

B-47 navigator/bombardier recalls when out of 45 Stratojets that took off from Little Rock AFB to the UK his B-47 was the only one that made it across the Atlantic Ocean

Heading for the UK

He continues;

‘My AC asked me for a heading for the tankers and left the formation. We rendezvoused with our tankers and took on our fuel. After refueling (we could not use the radios while refueling), the pilots asked for our location, and I gave it to them. They called the rest of the flight and told them where the tankers were at that time; by then, they were far away from the tankers.

‘I really didn’t know what we were going to do next, then the AC said; give me a heading for the UK. Now, I knew we were going to the UK alone, and I was going to navigate the North Atlantic in the middle of the winter, all by myself. I broke into a cold sweat; I was not prepared to do it.

‘Normally, the fifth aircraft in a flight of five just station keeps (keeps other aircraft on the radar) on the other aircraft in front of them, and the navigator/copilot team doesn’t shoot stars.

‘The lead navigator would do his planning by pre-computing the star shots on the ground the day before the flight. Now, I had to do the star computations in the small area and dim light of the cockpit. All across the Atlantic, I shot one star after another. My copilot, Mac McCraken, was young and eager, like me. He would do anything I asked him in the air. The older World War Two copilots would not have done it. This was hard work, and we never stopped until I saw the UK lands on the radar. WE HAD MADE IT.’

B-47 navigator/bombardier recalls when his Stratojet flew the largest Nuclear Bomb ever built to Spain — Richard “Butch” Sheffield is on the far right in the photo. His crew was named Best B-47 crew in 1960.

The only B-47 out of 45 that made it from Little Rock AFB to the UK

Sheffield concludes;

‘The following day, we were all told to report to see the Squadron Commander in his Office. This always meant trouble or an award. When we arrived, the AC was told to go in alone; Mac and I waited outside the door. We heard the Commander hollering all over the building, he was very mad that we had left the formation and went it alone.

‘When the AC came out, he was smiling. He said the Squadron Commander was just mad that the others were still back in the US, and they had never found the tankers and landed in North Eastern United States!

‘He said, I told him, we are here, and they are back in the US, so who goofed up?’

When he crossed the Atlantic Ocean alone, he was just 23 years old. A few years later, he was chosen to be among the first navigators on the new B-58. He was also the first RSO to be chosen for the SR-71 Blackbird initiative. He was ordered to follow the experienced, older navigators, but he had to take the lead and soon become good at it.

Check out the Habubrats SR-71‘s Twitter profile and the Born into the Wilde Blue Yonder‘s Facebook page for further Blackbird photos and stories.

Photo by U.S. Air Force and Linda Sheffield Miller

June 9, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

When a USAF F-15 pilot refused to fly a “not all aspect Sidewinder” mock air engagement against his Skyhawk

by Till Daisd June 8, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk

2,960 A-4 Skyhawk aircraft were produced by Douglas between 1954 and 1979. Known by their endearing nickname, “Heinemann’s Hot Rod” (after Douglas designer Ed Heinemann), the Bantam Bomber, Mighty Mite, and Scooter were built small to be economical and to fit more of them on a carrier. The US Navy, Marines, and friendly nations were able to use maneuverable, powerful attack bombers with exceptional altitude and range capabilities and a remarkable degree of armament capacity thanks to Skyhawks.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the legendary A-4 was intended to be a straightforward, lightweight Navy carrier attack aircraft, the Skyhawk performed a variety of tasks, including aerial refueling, nuclear strikes, and acting as an adversary aircraft.

USMC A-4 attack aircraft Vs USAF F-15 fighters

Stephen Smith, former US Marine Corps A-4 Skyhawk pilot, recalls on Quora;

‘True story. We (a Marine Corps Reserve squadron) were doing an exercise with a USAF F-15 squadron back in the 80’s. We were flying the A-4 Skyhawk, a very simple, quite maneuverable single seat aircraft. It was designed for ground attack, but due to it’s maneuverability, it could hold its own in a tight turning dogfight. You may remember it as the aircraft flown by the instructors in the original Top Gun movie. We had no radar, thus, no radar guided missiles. Instead of the two afterburning engines in an F-15, we had one, non-afterburning engine. Basically, we were well outgunned.

‘But we still did quite well against the Eagles. Our air to air weaponry consisted of a 20mm cannon and all aspect sidewinder missiles. The sidewinder used to only work when fired from behind the target aircraft, looking at his hot exhaust, but now, had been improved to be able to kill from any angle, if all the parameters were met.

‘At the end of each mission, we suggested the final engagement scenario to be one where we did not have all aspect Sidewinders available. So we had all launched with the older missiles. This was usually accepted by all to be good training for all of us, and made getting kills much more difficult.’

All aspect Sidewinders

Smith continues

‘On this day, I suggested that as our final engagement scenario. My USAF counterpart asked why? I said that it would simulate a situation where the war was getting stretched out, all the all aspect sidewinders had been used, and the supply had not been replenished. His reply stunned me. He looked me in the eyes , the eyes which would soon be looking for me from the cockpit of one of the world’s most modern and deadly air superiority fighters.

‘A fighter with a radar which would give him my position from 50 miles away, while scorching into the fight powered by two huge afterburning engines, and carrying an array of radar and heat seeking missiles, and a gun designed for air-to-air combat, against my 1960s vintage single, non-afterburning engine, non-radar equipped attack aircraft. And he said, “IF WE DON’T HAVE ALL ASPECT WINDERS, WE’RE NOT GOING.” I really was shocked! After getting my brain back on line, I said, “I don’t think that’s an option in the Marine Corps.”’

Smith concludes;

‘I will never forget that comment.’

Photo by U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force

June 8, 2024 0 comment

History

Why the E-3’s tail is coated in dielectric paint and why long-range missiles represent the only real threat to the AWACS

by Till Daisd June 7, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS

The Boeing E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning & Control System (or AWACS) is a modified Boeing 707 equipped with long-range radar and passive sensors capable of detecting air and surface contacts over large distances. Users on land, at sea, or in the air can get information gathered by AWACS directly from the aircraft in almost real-time.

In addition to providing fighter control over allied aircraft, the AWACS is capable of detecting, tracking, identifying, and reporting potentially hostile aircraft operating at low altitudes. It can simultaneously track and identify maritime contacts, and provide coordination support to allied surface forces.

Command and control battle management aircraft

As demonstrated throughout operations Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector, Allied Force, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, the E-3 Sentry is the best command and control battle management (C2BM) aircraft in the world. They provide radar surveillance and control in addition to providing senior leadership with time-critical information on the actions of enemy forces. Along with coordinating rescue efforts between military and civilian authorities, the E-3 has also been deployed to support humanitarian relief operations in the US in the wake of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

It was the first time in aerial warfare history that a whole air conflict was recorded thanks to the data collection capabilities of the E-3 radar and computer subsystems.

Hostile fighters Vs AWACS

Why don’t hostile fighters go after the AWACS before being engaged (and in many cases being shot down) by NATO fighter aircraft?

Jim Grupé, who was one of the systems engineers responsible for the design and development of AWACS, explains on Quora;

‘I was one of the systems engineers responsible for the design and development of AWACS. It happens that one of the studies I did was on the vulnerability of AWACS to enemy attack. This was in the 1970s when the E-3 plane was first produced, so my information is rather dated. I’m sure improvements have been made.

‘First off, AWACS had two basic mission types. In one case, the plane loitered at some distance and surveyed the horizon. I can’t give you numbers, but the radar is very accurate for a very long distance. (So accurate, we could tell by the radar signature what the target was, what armaments it was carrying, and how many were left.) In the event an enemy fighter came our way, we would simply call up our own fighters to take them out. I did the calculations for “probability of kill” in various scenarios, and the net of it is that AWACS was not likely to suffer any dents.

Long-Range Missiles Vs AWACS

‘The second case was more of a problem. This is where AWACS was over the battlefield, providing ground support. (Besides aircraft, we could pick out vehicles on the ground even under dense cover). The problem in this situation was that the enemy aircraft might be right below us, or at least quite close. For this situation, we would need our own forces to fly alongside. Unlike AWACS, however, their time in the air is much more limited, so we’d need constant cycling of our defensive forces. The probability of kill was still high, but not so high that every crew position didn’t have an escape hatch.

‘The real problem was long-range missiles. AWACS was radiating loudly on so many frequencies that a spit ball thrown into the air would likely be drawn to it by the static charge. Only a missile with a guidance system made in China might miss. Survivability was under 3 minutes unless the countermeasures were successful, which many times they are…. but many times, are not.’

E-3 AWACS contributed to the invention of stealth technology

Grupé continues;

‘So, we depended on careful deployment to NOT get us into those situations.

‘At this point, I think the best answer is that no fighter would go after AWACS because that would likely fail. But, if the enemy hoped to engage in any dogfighting, they had better start with a few long-range air defense missiles.’

According to Grupé, the AWACS also ‘contributed to the invention of stealth technology. You see, when AWACS turns and runs, its own tail got in the way of the radar and created a 30+ degree blind spot. After various solutions were considered, like inverting the tail, or making it out of some composite material, these were abandoned when someone discovered that they could make the tail all but disappear with a careful coating of a dielectric paint. WHOA! That *literally* saved AWACS’ ass, but very quickly became a VERY big secret… not to be mentioned again anywhere. It led to the F-117. But 40+ years later, it’s now out of the bag so it doesn’t matter anymore.’

E-3G crews break record for sequential flights flying 34 consecutive combat missions

Photo by Master Sgt. Dave Nolan / U.S. Air Force

June 7, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

EF-111A EWO recalls when his Raven with Asymmetric Slats had to do a departure end cable arrestment

by Till Daisd June 6, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The EF-111A Raven

In the 1980s and 1990s, EF-111A Ravens, often referred to as “Fat Tails” and “Spark Varks” (the F-111 is also called the Aardvark), were used as tactical electronic jammer aircraft. 42 EF-111As were delivered to the U.S. Air Force between 1981 and 1985, and the aircraft supported several USAF missions in the 1980s and 1990s.

To build the EF-111A, Grumman started equipping 42 F-111A Raven aircraft with jamming equipment in the 1970s. High-powered transmitter antennas were located in a 16-foot-long, canoe-shaped radome on the fuselage’s underside, and receiving antennae and additional equipment, including a processor to detect hostile radar emissions, were housed in a fin-tip pod on the vertical stabilizer. About four tons of sophisticated gear were involved. The right seat crewmember, or Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO), monitored the jamming equipment instead of performing flight-related duties because the equipment required full-time attention while in flight.

Grumman/General Dynamics Corp. started producing more EF-111A modification kits in 1984, allowing the aircraft to perform three different roles: penetration/escort, close-in jamming, and standoff jamming.

Similar to the F-111, the EF-111A was equipped with variable-sweep wings, which allow for wing configuration changes while in flight. Outstanding aerodynamic efficiency was given by the wing. The EF-111 could take off and land in as little as 2,000 feet when its wings were completely extended. It could fly at high or low altitudes at supersonic speeds when its wings were fully swept back.

EF-111A EWO navigator

Jim Howard, former EF-111A Raven EWO, recalls on Quora.

‘When I was a USAF EF-111A nav/EWO I had only one serious emergency (lots of ‘abnormals, like failed generators, but none that were scary) that really got my attention.

‘The F-111 was a swing wing airplane, the wings could be swept from 16 to 72 degrees.

‘I was an instructor EWO flying with a new pilot in England. The pilot was experienced in another fighter, but new the Vark. This was his third flight in England, and the first one that was not flown mostly in clouds.

‘This was a clear beautiful day. We flew up a low level across Scotland, driving down Loch Ness to the beautiful west coast.

‘Then we returned to our Upper Heyford base where I had the pilot ‘beat up the pattern’, so he could see all the various ground references that were helpful in flying visually near the airport.

‘On final for what we thought would be our full stop landing we configured the airplane, which in the Aardvark involves sweeping the wings most of the way forward. The leading edge slats (flaps to help you fly slow, but on the front of the wing) came down at 26 degrees wing sweep.

EF-111A EWO recalls when his Raven with Asymmetric Slats had to do a departure end cable arrestment

‘When my pilot swept the wings forward I heard an ‘oh shit’ comment from him. “It wants to roll on its back!”

’I looked at the gear/flap/slat position indicator and saw an unsafe indication for the leading edge slats. As I was grokking this my pilot asked ‘Is your slat down, because mine is not!’.

‘Mine was down.’

Asymmetric Slats

He continues

‘So we knew what we had, and it was serious. Asymmetric Slats. The F-111 wing has a bunch of moving parts. If at anytime the airplane detects an configuration it does not like it will lock the wing in whatever configuration you had at that moment.

‘The good news is that there is a checklist for this contingency.

‘More good news. We were light. Bad news: we were low on fuel.

‘We did I think fly two box patterns above the airport while we ran this checklist and consulted with the Supervisor of Flying (SOF, a senior instructor in the control tower). We both calculated a landing speed of 198 knots, much faster than our normal speed which was I think around 140.

‘Remember, energy needed to stop goes up with the square of your velocity.

‘So we go out and carefully line up for a long straight in approach, per the checklist. Everything is looking good, we have the hook down. The 8000-foot runway was kinda short for the mighty Vark even under normal conditions, let alone landing at 198 knots! Any slower than that and we would not have enough roll authority to keep the airplane right side up.

Departure end cable arrestment

‘We were planning for a departure end cable arrestment.

‘The low fuel light came on about two minutes out, but there was the runway, right in front of us, so we about as content as we could be. Of course all this time the pilot is fighting the airplane’s desire to start a continuous barrel roll.

‘All of a sudden the tower says ‘Raven GO AROUND’!

‘Both of us erupt into a string of naughty words, we were both really pissed off.

‘I tell the pilot to declare minimum fuel to discourage them from any further jerking us around.

Ravenous Radiation: a quick look at the Role Played by USAF EF-111A Electronic Jamming Aircraft during Operation Desert Storm

‘So as we are flying back out for a second long straight in I see that the tower let another Vark land in front of us. I’m thinking ‘If that guy blows a tire we are totally screwed’. That was because we did not enough gas to go to another airport with a Vark safe arresting system. We would have been faced with the choice of probably running off the end of the runway at nearby Brize Norton or punching out.

EF-111A Raven Cable arrestment

‘Thankfully that airplane landed normally, and we came in for landing. After touchdown the end of runway was getting pretty close pretty fast as my pilot stood on the brakes. We did catch the departure end arresting cable, the first time I had ever done that in a Vark.

‘I was expecting a Navy style sudden stop, but this cable gave a very Air Force Gentlemanly easy deceleration that left us stopped on the departure end runway numbers.’

Howard concludes;

‘When we stopped my pilot reached over to shake my hand. That was one my proudest moments in 20 years in the Air Force.

‘Postscript:

‘One of the slats had a bunch of bent metal where the slat guide track used to be.

‘We got away from that airplane as fast as we could, we didn’t want to wait around until the tires exploded.

‘When we got back to our squadron I called the SOF to ask why we were sent around.’

Photo by U.S. Air Force, Jim Howard, Mike Freer – Touchdown-aviation and Jason B from Australia via Wikipedia

June 6, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

Landing a Tomcat with a full load of 6 AIM-54 Phoenix missiles on the aircraft carrier

by Till Daisd June 5, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The AIM-54 Phoenix

The AWG-9 weapons control system and P&W TF30 engines were used by the F-14A Tomcat, which was built in 1968 to replace the controversial F-111B, which was being developed for the US Navy’s carrier fighter inventory. The F-14A Tomcat also carried the six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles that were meant to be installed on the F-111B.

Six Phoenix missiles could be guided by the F-14 at long range against six different threat aircraft thanks to the AWG-9. Four missiles, plus two under glove stations, can be carried beneath the fuselage tunnel of the Tomcat on specially designed aerodynamic pallets. Six Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix missiles full-loaded along with the special launch rails constitute around 8,000 lb (3,600 kg), or nearly twice the weight of Sparrows.

Landing an F-14 Tomcat with a full load of six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles on the aircraft carrier

Was it therefore possible for an F-14 carrying six AIM-54s to land aboard the aircraft carrier given the Phoenix’s (heavy) weight?

US Navy F-14 pilot recalls landing a Tomcat with a full load of six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles on the aircraft carrier

Launched on June 30, 1984, from NAS Pt. Mugu, a Tomcat piloted by Lt. Ed Riley and RIO Lt. Scott Lamoreaux from VX-4 carried six AIM-54C missiles trapped aboard the USS Constellation (CV-64) after launch. Operational suitability and operational effectiveness had to be established during operational testing (OT) as part of the AIM-54C OPEVAL, and that involved obtaining a significant number of captive carry-cats and traps aboard a carrier. This was achieved by exposing Tomcats equipped with numerous loadouts of AIM-54C missiles to the carrier environment over two years before they shot in a variety of scenarios to demonstrate their continued reliability under the stresses of carrier operations.

Riley explains in the book Half Century, Baby! by David ‘Hey Joe’ Parsons and Mads Bangsø;

‘So, the question of ‘why’ gets asked regarding a loadout of six Phoenix missiles, due to urban legend that it is not practical off the boat due to fuel remaining at Max Trap. […]

Flying multiple cross-country flights with the six Phoenix/two Sidewinder loadout

‘I had flown multiple cross-country flights, accumulating over 20 hours of flight time with the six Phoenix/two Sidewinder loadout, and to prepare for this CV landing, a regular bounce workup with various loadouts including 6+2 missile loadouts was accomplished and handling qualities at the heavy loads were explored. Particular attention was paid to ‘in-close wave off” and potential ‘bolter’ technique.

‘It was decided that a Case III straight-in approach to the trap with enough fuel to return to Pt Mugu would be used. Knowing that the Tomcat would be ‘trick or treat’ on the ball, a dedicated A-7 tanking aircraft was available to assist if required, to rendezvous and pass enough fuel for a second try. In addition to the landing, the maximum weight takeoff ‘cat shot’ was of equal importance. Full afterburner catapults could be a dicey situation if a burner blowout or a stall with the TF30 engines was encountered at maximum weight. Proper technique and early identification and application of the right controls were absolutely required to successfully fly away.’

Doomsday loadout: a rare event

Riley continues;

‘The question of who should fly the flight caused some discussion within the ranks of the pilots and RIOs at VX-4 at the time. The OPEVAL Operational Test Directors (OTDs) wanted a representative fleet crew and not just more experienced operators.

‘Since I (Lt Ed ‘Dragon’ Riley) and Lt Bill ‘Kato’ Nevius were the Co-OTD team conducting the OPEVAL, it was decided to go with an experienced pilot and a RIO with less experience in the F-14. I had over 1,500 hours in the F-14A and over 400 traps (300+ on CV-64). Lt Scott ‘Scooter Lamoreaux was a very experienced RIO in the F-4, but had less than 100 hours in the F-14A and this would be his first trap in the Tomcat.

‘The operational test crew was aware that landing with six Phoenix was a rare event, however, the tactical significance of this flight was potentially a ‘real world’ requirement (known as the Doomsday loadout). Getting the maximum number of Phoenix missiles airborne as quickly as possible in a Fleet Air Defense (FAD) scenario had been war gamed at WEPTAC and it was determined to be a clear discriminator making a difference against superior numbers of attackers during the Cold War era.

The F-14 Tomcat with six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles was in a class by itself

‘How better to do this than use the maximum loadout capability of the Tomcat loaded with the new AIM-54C that was proving to be effective against air-to-surface missiles at 100,000ft/Mach 4+ as well as low-flying cruise missiles and the attacking aircraft platforms at long range. With the largest warhead of any air-to-air missile and kill radius unmatched, the Tomcat with six Phoenix missiles was in a class by itself.’

Riley concludes;

‘With all the preparation to make this a safe yet operationally realistic event, in the end it went exactly as planned with a successful trap (OK, three wire)/hot pump/and AB cat shot and return to home base.

‘To answer the question of the viability of carrying six Phoenix around the ship: sure — why not, if the tactical situation dictates?’

Half Century, Baby! is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here and here.

Photo by U.S. Navy

June 5, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

When the Warthog became Snowhog

by Till Daisd June 4, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The A-10 Warthog

October 1975 saw the delivery of the first A-10A in production at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB), in Arizona.

When the Warthog became Snowhog: the story of the A-10 that received a unique arctic camouflage — Ground crewmen perform maintenance on the two A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft being used during exercise Cool Snow Hog ’82-1.

Over the years, numerous enhancements have been made to the A-10 Warthog (also known as the famous Thunderbolt II) CAS aircraft by her aircrew. The Pave Penny laser receiver pod, which sensed reflected laser radiation from a laser designator, was installed in the aircraft in 1978. Now that more capable and sophisticated targeting pods are available, Pave Penney has been phased out. Inertial navigation systems were first installed on the A-10 in 1980.

A-10 history also included a significant event that happened on December 18, 1981.

That day, two A-10 aircraft from the Fairchild-Republic factory in Hagerstown, Maryland, arrived at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB). According to Don Fenton, the historian of the 354th Fighter Wing, in the article “Arctic camouflage makes Eielson’s hogs unique,” the aircraft tail numbers of the first two A-10s assigned to Eielson were 80-221 and 80-222.

Can you guess how the two hogs shown in this post’s images are different from one another?

From A-10 Warthog to A-10 Snowhog

The two “hogs” are identical in every way except for the color. Whereas a warthog is entirely gray or green, a snowhog is covered with arctic camouflage. Both Snowhogs and Warthogs are nicknames for the two A-10s.

Nevertheless, 80-221 was repainted in an arctic camouflage scheme shortly after arriving at Eielson. This was carried out as a test for an upcoming exercise known as Operation Cool Snow Hog.

From March 8 to 16, 1982, a forward operating location in Kotzebue, Alaska, hosted the exercise.

Cool Snow Hog

Cool Snow Hog represented the Air Force’s first test of forward-basing A-10s in Alaska. Overall, the plan called for the Air Force to fly 16 close-air-support sorties in support of the 3rd Scout Battalion of the Alaska Army National Guard.

The forward operating location concept was put to the test during the next few years with a variety of operational readiness exercises and major joint forces exercises like BRIM FROST, but the exercises were never again called Cool Snow Hog exercises.

A-10 Thunderbolt II at COOL SNOW HOG '82-1 — Overhead view of an A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, with a camouflage paint scheme, parked on the apron beside a Beech C-12 aircraft. The Snowhog is being used during exercise Cool Snow Hog ’82-1.

It is important to remember that this paint scheme was merely an experiment. A-10s never operated in the arctic scheme for an extended period of time because the Air Force never fully adopted it. There are a few sources that claim that up to three more A-10s were painted in a similar manner, but no official records have been found to support this claim. The Hogs nevertheless look fantastic.

Photo by SSGT Bill Thompson / U.S. Air Force

June 4, 2024 0 comment

History

What the Luftwaffe’s leadership thought of the B-17 after their first encounter

by Till Daisd June 3, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

To overcome enemy defenses, the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was designed with a focus on high-altitude flight, speed, and powerful defensive armament. Its advanced turbosupercharged engines allowed it to reach altitudes of up to 30,000 feet while carrying a combat load, and its powered turrets and flexible guns provided all-around coverage.

Throughout World War II, the B-17 flew in every combat zone, but its most important missions were over Europe. The B-17, along with the B-24 Liberator, was the mainstay of the USAAF’s strategic bombing force, which contributed to the victory by crippling Germany’s military industry.

What did the Germans think of the B-17?

‘I’ll discuss the Luftwaffe’s leadership’s first encounter with a downed B-17, and their exact reactions to it,’ Carl Brutananadilewski, Former Electrican’s Mate Nuclear (EMN2), USN 2015-2021, says on Quora.

The Luftwaffe and the B-17 Flying Fortress

‘In early October 1942, the Luftwaffe was able to examine its first B-17 up close. A crashed B-17, which the Germans managed to down only after it had drifted out of formation, was reassembled at Rechlin, the Luftwaffe’s experimental aircraft testing facility. There, it was examined by senior Luftwaffe leadership.

‘This is significant because the first intact B-17 was only captured in December, more than two months later.

‘So, what did Luftwaffe leadership have to say about their first up-close examination with a B-17? I’ll let them speak for themselves!

‘Then Colonel Adolf Galland, Chief of the Day Fighter Squadrons, and later General of Fighter Aircraft, had this to say about it, “It unites every possible advantage in one bomber: firstly, heavy armor, secondly enormous altitude, thirdly colossal defensive armament, and fourthly, great speed.”

‘It’s no wonder he had that to say! The Germans discovered the aircraft was clearly designed for daylight operations: it had an enormous eleven heavy machine gun positions, loaded with incendiary ammunition then unknown to the Germans. Then, from another B-17 crash, the Germans had recovered almost intact the famous Norden bombsight (which funnily enough a German agent had already delivered the blueprints to the Luftwaffe before the war). That left no doubt about the Americans’ potential bombing accuracy.

“Things don’t look rosy for our big cities:” Here’s what the Luftwaffe’s leadership thought of the B-17 after its first encounter with a captured Flying Fortress — A B-17F Flying Fortress (serial number 41-24585) formerly of the 303rd Bomb Group, in Luftwaffe markings after being captured by the Germans.

‘Then combine the above knowledge with these two facts: American production figures, and that German reconnaissance flights over Eastern England showed extensive airfield construction. From this crash and that knowledge it was clear 1943 would see the onset of a crushing bombing offensive against Germany.’

No cause for anxiety about the American aircraft

Brutananadilewski continues;

‘Field Marshal Erhard Milch, State Secretary for the Luftwaffe, saw the writing on the wall after examining the crash when he said, “The Reichsmarschall (Hermann Göring) told me that there is no cause for anxiety about the American aircraft and that, four-engined though they may be, we can contemplate future equanimity. I told him that I do not agree.”

‘Milch, in fact, had much more to say than that later that month, “These are worries I just can’t get over. We have got to accept that one day the enemy bombers attacking Germany will be flying at altitudes of 28,000 or 30,000 feet.”

‘The strange thing is, this crash didn’t have the entirety of German air staff very worried! Or perhaps not so strange, when one takes into account that military officers are expected to be optimistic. Göring was not alone in his rosy analysis seen in Milch’s above quote. Hans Jeschonnek, Chief of General Staff in the Luftwaffe, had this to say about the incident, “We will fetch these four engined bombers down just as quickly as the twin-engined ones, and the loss of a four-engined bomber means a much higher loss to the enemy.”

The Luftwaffe saw the danger of the B-17 Flying Fortress

‘Despite some telling German victories against the allied bomber offensive, overall, history does not bear out Göring and Jeschonnek’s view in this matter.

‘As one can see, some realistic German leadership really saw the danger of these new aircraft, while others were confident they could fight them effectively and easily. But one this is for certain, Erhard Milch’s grim predication from this event about 1943, calling it, “The Year of Clenched Teeth” certainly bore out to be the truth.’

Brutananadilewski concludes;

‘I’ll end with another quote from Milch, from March 1943:

‘“Things don’t look rosy for our big cities.”’

Photo by Unknown and U.S. Air Force via IWM

June 3, 2024 0 comment

History

The F-5E pilot remembers the amazing simulated gun kill that Joe “Hoser” Satrapa Tomcat achieved against his Tiger

by Till Daisd June 2, 2024

written by Till Daisd

Joe “Hoser” Satrapa

Without a brace of Joe “Hoser” Satrapa stories, no dissertation on present-day section tactics—or naval aviation in general—could be considered complete.

Hoser was a legendary figure in naval aviation. He was good with a rifle as a kid, and while he was flying the F-8 Crusader, his instructor noticed how he simply “hosed,” or sprayed, bullets at the target being towed, and said, “We’ve got a hoser, here.” The moniker stuck, as usual, throughout the fighter community.

Hoser was legendary in the F-14 Tomcat community by the time he joined.

Fighting against Joe “Hoser” Satrapa F-14

In the book Half Century, Baby! by David “Hey Joe” Parsons and Mads Bangsø, Alex “Rattler” Rucker, an F-14 Tomcat pilot and VF-14 Tophatters CO, says that he also knew a thing or two about the element of surprise;

‘One particular event (of many) makes me smile.

‘The F-14 stopped in mid-air, pitched nose over as I slid out in front of it!’ F-5E pilot recalls when Joe “Hoser” Satrapa Tomcat scored an incredible simulated gun kill against his Tiger — Joe “Hoser” Satrapa

‘It was back in 1975. I was on the staff at TOPGUN and Hoser was at ACE/AIM up at Nellis. We had arranged to meet over the desert at Chocolate Mt. and do an ACM performance comparison between the F-5E and the F-14A.

‘By then I had a fair amount of time in the F-5 and it felt of like a second skin to me. I could do some really neat stuff with it and I figured I could at least give Hoser (with Bill “Hill Billy” Hill as his back seater) a respectable fight. So, we got together over the blazing desert below (with Clint Eastwood staring up at us, no doubt), took a two-mile lateral separation and the fight was on.

‘In no time we were beak to beak and for me the fight went downhill from there. I tried all my slickest moves, but in fairly short order I was looking back across my vertical stab at two huge intakes camped out at my six with ‘guns’ coming into my headset.

‘Vorboschka’ manoeuvre

‘Well, this went on for several more set-ups with the same end result. Finally, Hoser said we’d start with me behind him at 1,500ft. 0oohhk yeeahhh! I said to myself. He for damn sure can’t shake me off his dead six.

‘Wrong again.

‘He proceeds to go hard nose up and do one of his famous ‘Vorboschka’ manoeuvres (stick full forward and in one corner rudder full opposite) and now I’m watching this huge F-14 planform basically stopping in mid-air, pitching nose over as I slide out in front of him, and then recovering nose low behind me and rolling back to a perfect guns tracking solution at my six. I had no more questions. I spent the rest of the day looking for my appendage which had been so thoroughly knocked in the dirt.’

SEAL JTAC explains why the Navy F-14 Tomcat crews were the best for Close Air Support (Only matched by those of USMC F/A-18Ds) — This print is available from AircraftProfilePrints.com – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS. Half Century, Baby! F-14 Tomcat History Flight

The F-14 Tomcat was eye-watering

Rucker concludes;

‘The bottom line though is that not only was the Tomcat an awesome airplane, but in the hands of one of the few fighter pilots of Hoser’s league, it was absolutely eye-watering. Dale “Snort” Snodgrass was another one of those gifted sticks that the rest of us can only admire and envy. I was lucky to get to fly it. My admiration and thanks go to the Grumman Tank & Iron Works for a FINE fighting machine.’

Half Century, Baby! is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here and here.

Photo by David “Bio” Baranek / U.S. Navy and News10 video via Fire Aviation

June 2, 2024 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts