Tag:

aviation

How the demise of the F-111B led to the development of the legendary F-14 Tomcat

by Till Daisd September 15, 2021

written by Till Daisd

The F-14 was shown to be much better than the F-111B and a few other aircraft in a comparison study between the F-14 (at the time, Grumman’s design of a new fighter), the F-111B, and other aircraft

The General Dynamics F-111B, for which Grumman served as the prime contractor, failed to satisfy the U.S. Navy’s demand for a long-range carrier-based interceptor aircraft, giving birth to the Grumman F-14, one of the best fighters ever constructed.

However, it is necessary to discuss how the F-111B was created and why it failed to fulfill the service requirement to understand why the Tomcat was created.

Robert McNamara, who was the secretary of defense at the time, believed that the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the U.S. Navy should have worked together to create a multi-role combat aircraft in the 1960s. The Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) program came next, and it planned to provide the two services with two variations of the General Dynamics F-111’s variable swing-wing aircraft. For the U.S. Air Force, the F-111A was a land-based low-level bomber, while for the U.S. Navy, the F-111B was an interceptor outfitted with six AIM-54A Phoenix missiles.

On May 18, 1966, the F-111B made its maiden flight. Right away, there were issues, with weight being the main one. The desired weight for the F-111B, according to the Navy, was roughly 60,000 pounds; nevertheless, the actual weight of the aircraft was more than 70,000 pounds. Due to the angle of attack and reflection generated by the angled windshield, pilots also complained about poor visibility during carrier approaches.

The F-111B was also so underpowered that it was unable to approach the ship with the specified military power acceleration. McNamara decided that the top executives of the companies involved should meet twice a month to discuss the flaws of the machine. Vice-Admiral Tom Connolly, one of the Navy representatives, understood that the F-111B project should have been abandoned, but the Secretary of Defense insisted on moving forward with it.

Connolly flew the F-111B with an Air Force pilot in Fort Worth to better understand the issues with the aircraft. They both concluded that while the F-111A was the ideal bomber for the USAF, the F-111B could never be a fighter, and it could not operate off an aircraft carrier. In addition, a comparison study between the F-14 (at the time, Grumman’s concept for a new fighter), the F-111B, and a few other aircraft revealed that the F-14 was a far superior aircraft than any of the others. At this point, Admiral Tom Moorer, who was the Chief of Naval Operations, started to push for the cancellation of the program. However, McNamara persisted in pushing for the F-111B.

To find out why he shouldn’t be required to authorize the $200 million for the F-111B, a Senate Hearing was called at this point, as is detailed in Terry Treadwell’s book The Ironworks: Grumman’s Fighting Aeroplanes. Additionally, Admiral Tom Moorer, Vice Admiral Tom Connolly, and the new Secretary of the Navy, Paul Ignatius, were introduced to them. After a six-hour hearing, Stennis questioned Connolly about whether he would have contributed the extra funds to the program. Connolly responded, “No, Sir, I would not.”

When Stennis followed up by asking Connolly if he would have changed his mind if the plane had new engines, Connolly responded with a statement that would remain in aviation history: “Mr. Chairman, there isn’t enough thrust in all Christendom to make a Navy fighter out of that airplane.”

That effectively put an end to the F-111B as well as Tom Connolly’s aspirations of becoming a four-star admiral.

Instead, the F-14 Tomcat was created on that day, making its first flight on December 21, 1970, and serving on US Navy aircraft carriers until 2006.

You can watch the F-111B carrier testing in the video below, which took place before the plane was replaced by the F-14 Tomcat.

However, according to what a user (gort8203) commented, “the lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted”.

“The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements changed. Initially, the TFX program was reasonable because the USAF and USN were both asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long-range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash interception capability. It was never meant to be a dogfighter. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that the USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and the USN wanted side-by-side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy canceled its version, the USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly for a dogfighter. If the Navy had wanted a dogfighter, it would not have insisted on the side-by-side cockpit over the objection of the Air Force. The F-111 cockpit was suitable for a radar interceptor but not for an air superiority fighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb; what happened was that it needed to be changed. USN revised its specifications for the TFX as a result of combat experience in Vietnam and realized they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4 but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper for the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. The USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.”

Photo by U.S. Navy

September 15, 2021 0 comment

The legendary ace Robin Olds, the legendary F-4, and Operation Bolo

by Till Daisd September 13, 2021

written by Till Daisd

Olds downed a MiG-21, and his 8th TFW F-4 aircrews downed six additional aircraft, or over half of the VPAF operational force, without sustaining any USAF losses

As the U.S. Air Force (USAF) says goodbye to its final QF-4s, we commemorate the retirement of the legendary F-4 during Operation Bolo, the famous deception-based mission during the Vietnam War in which Phantoms replicate the normal flight paths of bombers in an effort to lure fighter aircraft of the Vietnam People’s Air Force (VPAF) into combat.

The Phantom II was initially created for U.S. Navy fleet defense and made its first flight in May 1958. The F-4C, the first variant for the U.S. Air Force, flew for the first time in May 1963, and production deliveries started six months later. After more than 5,000 Phantom IIs had been produced, more than 2,600 were made for the USAF, roughly 1,200 for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and the remaining aircraft were sold to friendly foreign nations.

The USAF deployed its first F-4Cs to Southeast Asia in 1965, where they carried out air-to-air missions against North Vietnamese fighters and made ground-based attacks.

Col. Robin Olds, a World War II ace, was the first USAF pilot to win four combat victories in Southeast Asia while flying F-4s. He achieved considerable renown and admiration as the forceful commander of the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) during the Southeast Asia War as a result of his audacity, bravery, and leadership.

Because his father served as a World War I pursuit pilot, a personal assistant to Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell, and the commander of the first B-17 squadron, Robin Olds grew up surrounded by military aviators and airplanes. At West Point, where he studied, Robin Olds’ innate boldness helped him succeed on the football field; in 1942, he was chosen as an All-American tackle. Olds completed his education in 1943, and then underwent aviation training before flying the P-38 in Europe.

Olds distinguished himself as a daring pilot and a born leader. He became the first ace of the 479th Fighter Group in a matter of months after downing five hostile fighters. He was assigned leadership of the 434th Fighter Squadron at the incredibly young age of 22, after being promoted to major. After the unit switched to P-51s, Olds continued to have success; he finished the war with 12 victories.

Col. Robin Olds with his F-4C SCAT XXVII. Olds named all his aircraft after his West Point roommate, Scat Davis, who could not become a military pilot due to poor eyesight.

Olds participated in the first P-80 jet demonstration team after World War II, then held leadership positions in some operational units before working as a staff member. Olds was resolved to enter combat when the Southeast Asia War erupted after being unable to obtain a combat station during the Korean War.

Olds assumed control of the 8th TFW at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base in the fall of 1966. Because of Olds’ charisma and bravery, his followers admired him, and the “Wolfpack” became the USAF’s most effective MiG-killing wing in Southeast Asia under his command. The Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association, which facilitated communication between USAF wings in Southeast Asia and developed into an enduring fraternal group, was also founded in large part because of Olds.

Revetments and F-4s of the 8th TFW at Ubon, Thailand

Olds took the initiative and flew on the most dangerous missions, sharing the risks with his aircrews. For his bravery in battle, he was awarded numerous awards, including the Air Force Cross for a mission in August 1967 during which he led a strike force against North Vietnam’s fiercely guarded Paul Doumer Bridge.

Olds’ greatest accomplishment was organizing and directing Operation Bolo, which involved tricking North Vietnamese MiG-21 pilots into engaging in an unfair air fight.

The USAF was only allowed to shoot down enemy fighters in the air and was not allowed to target North Vietnamese airfields in late 1966. Enemy MiGs concentrated on bomb-laden F-105s and only engaged in combat when they had a definite advantage, which complicated the situation. Col. Robin Olds and Capt. John “J.B.” Stone, the tactics officer for the 8th TFW, came up with a brilliant scheme to entice and trap North Vietnamese MiG-21s by imitating an F-105 bombing formation.

On January 2, 1967, F-4s from the 8th TFW made their way into North Vietnam from the west using the same altitude, formation, and path as an F-105 bombing raid. Additionally, they had electronic jamming pods for F-105s that they carried and employed. The MiGs approached to intercept what they believed to be an F-105 strike after the North Vietnamese fell for the bait. In order to stop the MiGs from fleeing to China and orbiting their bases, which prevented the MiGs from landing, 366th TFW F-4s arrived in North Vietnam from the east at the same time.

Despite a few issues brought on by the overcast weather, Operation Bolo was a huge success. Olds downed a MiG-21 during the 12-minute encounter, and his 8th TFW F-4 aircrews downed six additional aircraft, or over half of the VPAF operational force, with no USAF losses.

Four days later, two more MiG-21s were brought down by a different trick, this one imitating an F-4 reconnaissance aircraft. For several months, these severe losses significantly decreased MiG activity.

VPAF MiG-21 deploying its braking chute while landing after a mission.

In December 1967, Olds returned from Southeast Asia. He was given the rank of brigadier general in 1968, took over as the cadet commandant of the U.S. Air Force Academy, and left active duty in 1973.

Col. Robin Olds painting a victory star on the F-4 he was flying on May 4, 1967, when he shot down a MiG-21.

Source: National Museum of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Air Force; Photo by U.S. Air Force

September 13, 2021 0 comment

MiG-23 Flogger Fighter jet Constant Peg program named after Air Combat Command Commander

by Till Daisd September 13, 2021

written by Till Daisd

The goal of CONSTANT PEG was to instruct combat fighter pilots from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps on how to engage MiGs in aerial combat and prevail in them

As explained by Senior Airman Rachel Loftis, 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs, in the article “Capt. Carlisle” unveiled: MiG-23 dedicated to ACC Commander, at a ceremony held at the Threat Training Facility on Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada, on October 17, 2016, U.S. Air Force (USAF) personnel unveiled a Russian MiG-23 fighter jet with the nickname “Captain Carlisle,” which was dedicated in memory of Gen. Hawk Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command (ACC).

The ceremony’s opening remarks were made by Col. Samantha Weeks, commander of the 57th Adversary Tactics Group, who praised the aircraft’s namesake.

“It is my honor to be with you today as we dedicate an aircraft to one of the finest fighter pilots in our Air Force and one that I have been fortunate enough to work for almost my entire career,” said Weeks. “To have command of one of his prior assignments is a huge responsibility and one that I am forever grateful for.”

Weeks explained that “Gen. Carlisle has flown more than 3,600 flight hours in seven different fighter aircraft and currently leads over 94,000 Airmen as the ACC commander, and while we are here today to dedicate a MiG-23 in his name, I know he would rather make this event about the men and women, pilots, and maintainers who devoted themselves to the 4477th CONSTANT PEG.”

The CONSTANT PEG program was started by the wife of Maj. Gaillard Peck while she was working for Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. “Sandy” Vandenberg at the Pentagon. Vandenberg’s call sign was “CONSTANT,” and the program was named after him.

The goal of CONSTANT PEG was to instruct the combat fighter aircrews of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps on the most effective strategies for engaging MiGs in aerial combat. From 1986 to 1988, Carlisle served as the flight commander and chief of weapons and tactics for the 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB.

The official dedication phase of the ceremony began after Weeks’ speech and the “Captain Carlisle” MiG-23 was then unveiled. Carlisle then stepped onto the podium for a few quick remarks celebrating CONSTANT PEG’s legacy.

An Airman reveals the nickname of a MiG-23 during a dedication ceremony at the Threat Training Facility on Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., Oct. 17. The MiG-23 was dedicated to Gen. “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, in recognition of his time as the Chief of Weapons and Tactics and Flight Commander for the 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron from 1986 to 1988.

“We’re approaching 44 years where we have not lost an airplane, thanks to the tough lessons we learned,” said Carlisle. “Since 1972, the Air Force has not lost an airplane in air-to-air combat. Oh, and by the way, April 15, 1953, was the last time a soldier had to worry about an enemy airplane dropping a bomb on them.”

Carlisle went on to add, “It’s amazing to think about what our Air Force has done. Those lessons we learned coming out of Vietnam were difficult, but the key point in that statement is we learned the lessons. So, I guess the bottom line to that whole thing is if you’re in a country that’s an enemy of the United States and you fly for that country, the short answer is, it sucks to be you.”

During the Cold War, one of the most popular and effective Soviet aircraft was the Mach-2-capable MiG-23 Flogger. It opened the way for the equally effective MiG-27 Flogger ground strike variant since it was the first Soviet airplane to have variable-sweep wings.

Photo by U.S. Air Force

September 13, 2021 0 comment

Georgy Mosolov, a renowned Soviet test pilot who flew with the MiG-21 for the first time

by Till Daisd September 13, 2021

written by Till Daisd

On February 14, 1955, Colonel Georgy Mosolov made the first flight of the storied MiG-21 fighter prototype

Soviet test pilot Georgy Mosolov passed away in Moscow on March 19 at the age of 91, according to MiG Corporation.

“The legend of jet aviation has passed away,” MIG’s Director General Ilya Tarasenko said. “He was a merited test pilot who made a huge contribution to the development of combat aviation in this country.”

The Flight Research Institute outside Moscow is where Colonel Georgy Mosolov, who was born on May 3, 1926, completed the test pilot school before joining the MIG Corporation staff in 1953.

TASS claims that Mosolov was not only a pioneer of supersonic and high-altitude flight but also one of the first Soviet pilots to break world records. He holds six records, three of which are absolute and the other three are in Soviet aviation.

On February 14, 1955, Colonel Mosolov made the first flight of the famed MiG-21 (NATO reporting name Fishbed) fighter prototype.

He also achieved various records when piloting MiG-21 prototypes. Additionally, he had a reputation for being close with Yuri Gagarin, the first person to journey to space.

He examined fighter aircraft engines, performed intricate tests on the aerodynamics, stability, and controllability of the aircraft, and flew more than 50 different types of aircraft while on active duty.

Georgy Mosolov, who was flying a prototype of the MiG-23 on September 7, 1962, was severely hurt when he ejected from the aircraft after it suffered an engine failure. He survived two seeming deaths while receiving treatment at the Sergei Botkin General Hospital in Moscow, forcing him to give up his test pilot career.

From 1978 through 1992, he served as Aeroflot’s general representative in a number of nations.

In October 1960, Mosolov received the Gold Star of Hero of the Soviet Union from the Soviet authorities.

Legendary Soviet test pilot Georgy Mosolov has passed away. He had been the first to fly the MiG-21. — Colonel Georgy Mosolov

Photo by Markkonen Own work and Mihenator Own work via Wikipedia

September 13, 2021 0 comment

Honoring the heritage of POW fighter pilots with a USAF T-38 painted in the F-4 Vietnam War scheme

by Till Daisd September 13, 2021

written by Till Daisd

The painters made an approximation of the F-4’s camouflage scheme using a schematic from an outdated technical order

The 45th annual Freedom Flyer Reunion of the 560th Flying Training Squadron took place on March 22–23, and a T-38 Talon with a color scheme familiar to U.S. Air Force (USAF) pilots who flew missions during the Vietnam War will play a significant role.

At Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, it will continue to be a sight to behold.

One of the T-38Cs belonging to the 560th FTS has been repainted to resemble the F-4 Phantom II from the Vietnam War, which many USAF pilots were flying when they were shot down over North Vietnam and taken to prisoner-of-war camps. The F-4 Phantom II’s original colors were gray, green, and tan.

“The T-38 was specifically painted for this year’s reunion,” said Maj. Wil Harris, 45th Freedom Flyer Reunion director. “It will be a central piece in the freedom flights of three ex-POWs on March 22. It will also be on display at the reunion’s wreath-laying ceremony at Washington Circle the next day.”

According to Harris, 560th FTS director of standards and evaluations, the idea to paint one of the T-38s like the F-4 originated from a squadron discussion about the Freedom Flyers and Vietnam, as stated by Robert Goetz, 502nd Air Base Wing Public Affairs, in the article T-38C dons F-4’s colors for the role during Freedom Flyer Reunion.

“We have numerous pictures of Vietnam-era aircraft in our squadron as part of our Freedom Hall, and as we discussed the aircraft of the era, we started talking about how cool the paint scheme looked and mentioned how awesome it would look on a T-38,” he pointed out.

Harris gave the 560th FTS instructor pilot Lt. Col. Dennis Hargis credit for realizing the vision. The procedure was started when Hargis sent the plan to Lt. Col. Jonathan Elza, commander of the 560th FTS.

“Lt. Col. Elza was completely supportive, and the email was sent up, so from inception to execution was literally two days,” Harris said. “The paperwork came back approved within a few weeks, so at every level, folks were supportive of the plan and really helped move this idea along.”

The corrosion control team of the 12th Maintenance Group was tasked with changing the T-38’s colors, and they concluded the job on March 3 after receiving the aircraft on February 23.

According to Don Collier, a member of the 12th MXG corrosion control team, the process involved masking the aircraft, sanding it, painting the landing gear, masking the landing gear, priming and painting the aircraft in the new colors, and stenciling it.

“It took six hours to paint the aircraft,” he said. “A normal paint job on a T-38 takes about two hours.”

According to Collier, the painters attempted to replicate the F-4’s camouflage pattern using a schematic from an outdated technical order.

“The T-38’s a lot smaller, so we had to adjust the schematic to suite the aircraft,” he said. “It was all through trial.”

The project’s corrosion control team also included Mario Tarin, Neil Orlowski, John Esquivel, and Martin Herrera in addition to Collier.

As a continuous member of the T-38 fleet, the aircraft will continue to fly in the F-4’s colors long into the following ten years, he claimed.

“I will say it looks even better than what we imagined,” Harris said. “The 12th Maintenance Group really did an amazing job; the work that they put into the aircraft really makes it a fitting tribute to the men and women of the Vietnam era who sacrificed so much for this nation.”

The reimagined T-38, according to Harris, was the “perfect centerpiece” for the reunion.

USAF T-38 with F-4 Vietnam War-paint scheme honors legacy of POW fighter pilots

“It will let the Freedom Flyers and POWs know that we as a nation are still indebted to them for their sacrifice and humbled by their return with honor in the face of such harsh circumstances.”

Photo by U.S. Air Force

September 13, 2021 0 comment

MiG Killer F-4! The Vietnam War’s only VF-31 aerial triumph

by Till Daisd September 11, 2021

written by Till Daisd

“It was like something out of the old days. We had a standard Mark One dogfight as if it were right out of WWII. If you could have spoken to the Red Baron, of WWI fame, he could have probably told you some of the maneuvers we used,” Sam C. Flynn, former F-4 pilot

Despite being phased out of the Navy and Marine Corps, the F-4 Phantom II’s history is filled with innumerable accomplishments and successes in combat. The fight between an F-4 Bureau Number 157307 and a MiG adversary aircraft on Yankee Station off the coast of Vietnam on June 21, 1972, is described in the following story, headlined F-4 MiG Killer, written by then JO2 Julius L. Evans and published in the May-June 1989 issue of Naval Aviation News.

Saratoga (CV-59) had been on duty for several months prior to being diverted from her initial deployment to the South China Sea.

Saratoga had just finished her operational readiness-required workups in preparation for the impending Mediterranean journey, although East Coast carriers don’t typically do Western Pacific cruises. She was the ready carrier and was berthed in Mayport, Florida. The crew of the Saratoga was prepared, as all carrier crews are urged to have their seabags ready to detach earlier than intended if necessary. There was not much time left before departure for the Mediterranean.

The necessity emerged suddenly.

Following the conclusion of at-sea workups, Saratoga had 30 days to prepare for deployment. Some crew members took leave and left the area as the ship was being prepared for her imminent deployment to the Mediterranean, while others opted to spend the last few weeks with their families before the men in white manned the rails as the ship returned to deep water operations.

It was the “Phantom Fling” night. The officers and their wives were ready for the gala, which typically attracted the most fighter squadron members who weren’t on deployment. For some of the spouses, finding the ideal clothing took a lot of time, and in preparation for the celebrations, last-minute tailoring was done on a few of the white mess dress uniforms.

The combat in Vietnam, which was thousands of miles away, was getting worse. Many Americans underestimated how difficult an enemy the Vietcong would be. A West Coast carrier was unable to deploy as planned because more power was required at Yankee Station at the last minute. The Joint Chiefs of Staff made their choice without delay. To expand operations, Saratoga would be directed to the Western Pacific.

While the “Fling” was in full swing back home in the United States, commanding officers were told in whispers that Saratoga was to deploy right away. It came as a complete shock. Nobody anticipated deployment in an emergency. The radar intercept officer (RIO), who later flew in Phantom 157307 during the MiG mission, Lieutenant Willian H. John, recalled that once we received notice, we had roughly 72 hours to start moving. “That involved transporting supplies and employees from Oceana, Va., to Mayport, Fla., and preparing the ship with all we required for a Westpac journey.

F-4 MiG Killer! The story of the only VF-31's MiG Kill of the Vietnam War

“We stayed up all night calling everyone back from leave,” John said. “Some personnel had to meet the ship at sea. It was quite an involved process to get everyone back on board and get underway, but we were steaming well within our allotted time.”

Flight activities accelerated once Saratoga arrived at the station and allied with USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63). The executive officer of VF-31 and pilot of the MiG mission at the time, Commander Sam C. Flynn, remarked that “we were on the front line flying combat missions from May until June.”

Cdr. Flynn and Lt. John piloted Phantom 157307 as they guided the MiG Combat Air Patrol (MiG CAP), which was made up of two Phantoms. Their task was to fly under the protection of an A-6 Intruder and an A-7 Corsair II strike force attack aircraft, both of which were tasked with attacking objectives between Haiphong and Hanoi.

The MiG CAP was instructed to take up position between the strike force and the airfield where MiGs were most likely to originate. When the USS Long Beach (CGN-9), the MiG CAP’s control ship, reported that MiGs were airborne, the leading aircraft had just finished in-flight refueling.

“We ingressed over an enemy territory about five minutes before the strike force,” Cdr. Flynn said. The ground crew began firing surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) at the two F-4s as soon as they crossed ridgelines. When Long Beach directed them north to the MiGs, which were 15 to 20 miles distant, they had just managed to avoid the missiles’ course.

Prior to making visual contact with the MiGs during the run-in, the Phantoms were free to fire. The F-4s were unable to see the MiGs on their radar because they were flying higher than expected. Lt. John explained, “After maneuvering against the SAMs, we came in at about 7,000 feet and expected the MiGs to be below us. They were actually well above us.”

According to Cdr. Flynn, when the Phantom met the MiGs, “It was like something out of the old days. We had a standard Mark One dogfight as if it were right out of World War II. If you could have spoken to the Red Baron of WWI fame, he could have probably told you some of the maneuvers we used.”

The wingman started the fight, but the Phantom was at a disadvantage because the MiGs were coming in from overhead. “Our wingman who had the initial tally was unable to achieve an engaging position, so we took the offensive and came behind the lead MiG’s wingman,” Lt. John said.

F-4 MiG Killer! The story of the only VF-31's MiG Kill of the Vietnam War

“When we went high, we followed him, and after a series of loops, turns, and high-speed maneuvers, we locked up the MiG and attempted to fire a Sparrow missile, but it malfunctioned on the aircraft.”

The lead MiG was preparing to fire an Atoll, the Soviet version of a Sidewinder, as it maneuvered behind our wingman. “We had the advantage on our MiG, but after the missile malfunction and switching to Sidewinder, I came out of the cockpit,” Lt. John said, referring to looking out of the cockpit instead of using radar. “Knowing where our wingman should be—10 o’clock high in that a MiG was at his 7 o’clock and pulling lead to fire—I told Nick, our wingman, that he had a MiG at his 7 o’clock who was firing and called Sam off the MiG we were engaging and told him that our wingman was at 11 o’clock high. Sam immediately broke off the chase.”

By the time the lead Phantom arrived, the wingman had dodged two missiles. “Sam told him to keep pulling on the stick and to keep it in the afterburner because the MiG was still at his 7 o’clock,” Lt. John said. Although his wingman was too close to his line of fire, the lead Phantom was able to establish a good firing position on the MiG. “I didn’t know if the missile would guide on the Phantom or the MiG, so I fired a Sidewinder off to the right, hoping that the MiG would turn around to engage me,” Cdr. Flynn continued.

Cdr. Flynn understood that he didn’t have much time to remain inside the Sidewinder envelope since the MiG may outturn the Phantom. “I was about 45 degrees off his tail and realized that he was going to be out of the missile envelope real soon,” Flynn said. A third missile was launched by the MiG at the wingman. When the wingman abruptly drew back, the MiG yo-yoed high, allowing Phantom 157307 to slam into the back of the MiG.

“Once we got in position, we were able to fire two additional Sidewinders at him. The first missed, but the second went right up the tailpipe and blew off part of the empennage, Lt. John recalled. “He went into a flat spin and tried to recover a couple of times, eventually ejected at about 1,000 feet.”

Although the entire action only lasted for about a minute and a half, the Phantom 157307 aircrew will likely remember the adventure for the rest of their lives. “The opportunity to successfully engage in combat instills a feeling of accomplishment,” Cdr. Flynn stated. “You’re honed right to the razor’s edge after 24 years of training for this event; you could say a sense of self-satisfaction sums up everything.”

Lt. John added, “This was like the graduation of all my training. It was an exhilarating experience that very few pilots or radar intercept officers get the opportunity to go through.”

F-4 MiG Killer! The story of the only VF-31's MiG Kill of the Vietnam War

For their gallant efforts, they each received the Navy Silver Star.

Photo by U.S. Navy

September 11, 2021 0 comment

The Me 109G replica flown by Adolf Galland and Robert Stanford-Tuck is on sale

by Till Daisd September 10, 2021

written by Till Daisd

Adolf Galland, a renowned German ace, took his final flight in a Me 109

Platinum Fighters is offering for sale a unique Hispano Buchon, the Spanish version of the Me 109G. The warbird is extremely rare as it is the only surviving two-seater in the world.

The famed German ace Adolf Galland flew the aircraft, and it was on this plane that he completed his final flight in a Me 109.

As explained by The Register Buchon HA-1112-M4L, registered G-AWHC, differs from a standard Me 109 in having a British-designed Rolls Royce Merlin engine fitted instead of the German fighter’s V12 Daimler-Benz powerplant. The actual plane was flown in the renowned 1969 movie Battle of Britain, whose creation directly contributed to the preservation of numerous vintage WWII aircraft that are now admired by large crowds at airshows.

The copy of the Me 109G which was flown by Adolf Galland and Robert Stanford-Tuck is up for sale

Only two two-seater Buchons were ever produced out of the total 233 that were ordered for construction. According to auction house Platinum Fighter Sales, the first model, which was powered by a Spanish Hispano-Suiza 12Z engine and given the designation HA-1112-K1L, was eventually upgraded to -M4L specifications, making G-AWHC “one of the rarest warbirds available in the marketplace today.”

The Buchon was saved from being scrapped by retired Royal Air Force (RAF) Group Captain Hamish Mahaddie, who, after a military career that included service with the renowned Pathfinders of RAF Bomber Command, became well-known for finding Second World War aircraft for movies in the 1950s and 1960s – to the point where he became aviation consultant for James Bond filmmakers EON Productions.

115 warplanes, including the Buchon M4L, were scrounged by Mahaddie from various organizations, including the Spanish Air Force. The Battle of Britain producers needed bombers for their aerial dogfight scenes, and the Spanish continued to utilize Buchons and even Heinkel 111s after the war.

The technical specialist for the Battle of Britain was Galland, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and squadron commander who reportedly sarcastically replied to Hermann Goering when the Nazi air force chief asked if there was anything he wanted: “Give me a squadron of Spitfires!” Robert Stanford-Tuck, a retired RAF wing commander who commanded 257 Squadron RAF during the last stages of the actual battle, was on the “other” side.

The copy of the Me 109G which was flown by Adolf Galland and Robert Stanford-Tuck is up for sale

In a moment where Kesselring is shown delivering the Nazi salute rather than the customary military salutation, Galland, who was serving as a German technical advisor, objected. Journalist Leonard Mosley saw Galland interfere with the shooting and need to be led away from the scene.

Galland then threatened to withdraw, stating that keeping the scene would have “dire consequences for the film.” Galland was eventually persuaded to approve the scene, after all, when the finalized sequence was screened in front of him and his lawyer.

According to one version, Galland and Stanford-Tuck took G-AWHC up for a flight together toward the conclusion of filming, becoming friends in the same aircraft. Stanford-Tuck was eventually chosen by Galland to be his son’s godfather.

The Register claims that Buchon M4L was received as payment in lieu of cash by one Wilson “Connie” Edwards, who served as the film’s primary stunt pilot and spent the next 45 years languishing in a Texas barn after production was completed. The aircraft was eventually sold by Edwards in 2014 after being repaired to a flyable state by UK-based Air Leasing.

The copy of the Me 109G which was flown by Adolf Galland and Robert Stanford-Tuck is up for sale

The Buchon is up for auction starting at $6m plus VAT. More information is available on Platinum Fighter Sales’ website.

Photo by Platinum Fighters

September 10, 2021 0 comment

Amelia Earhart’s bones were discovered on a Pacific island on International Women’s Day

by Till Daisd September 10, 2021

written by Till Daisd

Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan vanished in 1937 while attempting to fly around the world in a Lockheed Model 10-E Electra over the central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island

According to The Telegraph, a new forensic investigation has determined that the bones discovered on a remote Pacific island are most likely those of the missing aviator Amelia Earhart.

Amelia Earhart, the first woman to fly alone across the Atlantic Ocean, vanished over the Pacific Ocean on July 2, 1937, while attempting to be the first woman to fly around the world.

Since then, a number of conspiracies and rumors regarding her fate have surfaced, one of which is that the Japanese captured and held her.

However, according to a recent investigation led by University of Tennessee professor Richard L. Jantz, the bones discovered on the island of Nikumaroro three years after the pilot went missing are indeed those of the missing pilot.

The bones were first rejected as belonging to Amelia Earhart since a preliminary investigation revealed they were male. Professor Jantz has suggested that the bone measurements closely match Earhart’s records, despite the fact that forensics were not completely developed at the time.

“The only documented person to whom they may belong is Amelia Earhart,” he pointed out.

American aviation pioneer and novelist Amelia Earhart was born on July 24, 1897. She achieved many records, wrote best-selling books about her flying experiences, and was instrumental in the establishment of The Ninety-Nines, an organization for female pilots. Earhart joined the visiting faculty at Purdue University in 1935, serving as an aviation engineering advisor and a career counselor for female students. She was also a supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment and a member of the National Woman’s Party.

On International Women's Day forensic study concludes that bones found on Pacific island belong to Amelia Earhart — Amelia Earhart standing under the nose of her Lockheed Model 10-E Electra

Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan vanished over the central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island in 1937 while trying to fly around the world in a Lockheed Model 10-E Electra Purdue-funded.

The U.S. Navy searched the area for weeks, but the plane was never located, and Earhart was formally declared dead in 1939. An exploratory team from the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme, which sought to populate remote islands, discovered bones on Nikumaroro in 1940.

The officer in charge then directed a larger search of the area, which, according to The Telegraph, uncovered other bones, a piece of a woman’s shoe, and personal items like a sextant box and a bottle of the herbal liqueur Benedictine.

The remains were inspected by Dr. D. W. Hoodless, the principal of the Central Medical School in Fiji, who came to the conclusion that they belonged to a “stocky male” who stood roughly 5 feet, 5 inches tall.

Professor Jantz used the bone measurements acquired by Hoodless and compared them to what is known about Amelia Earhart’s body type because bones have since been lost.

Using her photographs, together with copies of her driver’s and pilot’s licenses, Jantz was able to piece together Earhart’s bone dimensions.

Summing up the process, he said: “If the skeleton were available, it would presumably be a relatively straightforward task to make a positive identification or a definitive exclusion.

On International Women's Day forensic study concludes that bones found on Pacific island belong to Amelia Earhart — A map of the Pacific showing en: Amelia Earhart’s final flight, her destination of en: Howland Island that she did not reach (as well as Honolulu, her goal afterward), and some proposed alternative places Earhart might have landed.

“Unfortunately, all we have are the meager data in Hoodless’s report and a premortem record gleaned from photographs and clothing.

“From the information available, we can at least provide an assessment of how well the bones fit what we can reconstruct of Amelia Earhart.”

Professor Jantz claimed that in 1940 “osteology was not yet a well-developed discipline,” leading Hoodless to incorrectly assign the gender of the remains.

According to his own research, the bones were more similar to Amelia Earhart’s measurements than 99 percent of a considerable sample size.

Jantz concluded: “Until definitive evidence is presented that the remains are not those of Amelia Earhart, the most convincing argument is that they are hers.”

What happened to Earhart and Noonan after they vanished is the subject of much speculation. Although many explanations, including various conspiracy ideas, have been put out, most historians still adhere to the straightforward “crash and sink” scenario.

Some claim that Earhart and Noonan made it to another place after landing; however, they were either never discovered or murdered, which makes en-route locations like Tarawa implausible. The Japanese-controlled Marshall Islands, which are located 870 miles (1,400 km) away from Howland at Mili Atoll, the uninhabited Gardner Island, and the Japanese-controlled Northern Mariana Islands, which are situated 2,700 miles (4,300 km) away from Howland, have all been suggested as potential locations.

On International Women's Day forensic study concludes that bones found on Pacific island belong to Amelia Earhart — In a Stearman-Hammond Y-1

Photo by NASA on The Commons, United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division, SnowFire and Underwood & Underwood via Wikipedia

September 10, 2021 0 comment

When the U.S. Navy F/A-18 was shot down by a U.S. Army PAC-3 Patriot missile battery

by Till Daisd September 10, 2021

written by Till Daisd

“The Patriot is by far the most lethal SAM system in the world, and there is no aeroplane in existence that is going to get away from it. The missile itself is also designed to bias its impact on the nose of the aircraft so as to kill the pilot. If a Patriot is fired at your aircraft, you might as well eject, as there is nothing you can do to get away from it,” Lt. Cdr. Ron Candiloro, VFA-151’s F/A-18 Hornet pilot

Around 250 F/A-18 Hornets participated in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) from land bases and the six U.S. Navy supercarriers stationed in the Northern Arabian Gulf (NAG) and the eastern Mediterranean. The F/A-18 Hornet served as the “universal soldier” of the war effort.

Between March 19 and April 18, 2003, the F/A-18s and other Naval TACAIR types performed an incredible 5568 combat missions, dodging hostile AAA and SAMs, bad weather, and crowded skies to guarantee a Coalition victory in the shortest amount of time. No Navy aircraft was lost as a consequence of enemy action due to the forceful pre-war training, vast air supremacy, and effective tactics. One navy aviator, regrettably on his own side, was killed in action during OIF.

In accordance with Tony Holmes and Chris Davey’s explanation in their book U.S. Navy Hornet Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Part One), Lt. Nathan White of CVW-5’s VFA-195 had taken off from USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) on the night of April 2, 2003, on what was intended to be a routine kill box interdiction/close air support (KI/CAS) mission in support of troops approaching Baghdad.

Since March 19, White and his squadron mates have been actively engaged in the ground campaign, working particularly alongside components of V Corps. When White and his wingman entered Iraq, their E-2 controller gave them directions to Karbala, which is located 50 miles south of Baghdad. In order to clear the way for mechanized units moving north, air support was requested since elements of the 3rd Infantry Division were experiencing fierce resistance in the area.

When Lt. White’s Hornet was assaulted by a U.S. Army-manned mobile PAC-3 Patriot missile battery in south-central Iraq, it is unknown if he had already bombed his targets and was returning home or was still on route there. The shattered F/A-18C crashed into a lake in an Iraqi Air Force bombing range near Karbala, and its location subsequently hampered efforts made by the U.S. Army’s Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel or TRAP team to recover Lt. White’s body. His jet was destroyed by the weapon, and neither the aircraft nor the pilot’s remains were discovered for another ten days. The pilot’s remains were eventually found in the lake on April 12; 12 days later, he was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors.

Ironically, in the final email he sent to his family before his unfortunate death, Nathan White made a passing reference to the threat posed by the Patriot batteries. “When going in on a strike, there is always a lot going on. Here is a brief snapshot – brief for an hour or more to map out the flight, get catapulted from standstill to 140 miles an hour in less than two seconds, navigate through a maze of airborne highways that try to deconflict aircraft, and of course, steer you clear of the Army’s Patriot batteries, jump from radio frequency to radio frequency at least 12 different times, shifting from controller to controller, avoid a sky full of AAA, surface-to-air missiles and ballistic rockets, set up your weapons system, acquire your target, drop on target, fly to an airborne tanker, join up, get gas and then fly back and land on a boat bobbing around in the middle of a sandstorm. Make it nighttime and throw in thunderstorms, and then it really gets exciting.”

Prior to the start of OIF, Navy pilots had expressed concerns about the deadly Patriot missile, but their worries increased after No. 9 Sqn RAF lost a Tornado GR 4 on the morning of March 23 while it was returning to Ali Al-Salem airport in Kuwait following a strike operation.

VFA-151’s Lt. Cdr. Ron Candiloro explained: “Although I remained wary of the Iraqi SAM threat, I was actually more afraid of our own Patriot batteries. We would commonly get lit up by the missile’s fire control radar, and that was really scary. These lock-ups increased in frequency as our forces moved further north into Iraq, and this prompted my CO. Cdr Hubbard, to investigate a daily briefing that told us all where the Patriot batteries were all over the country. A copy of this information was also painted onto a card that we carried with us in the cockpit. I felt that this was the most important briefing card issued to me before every mission, and it was always at the top of my knee war pack – I was terrified by the Patriot.

“It is by far the most lethal SAM system in the world, and there is no aeroplane in existence that is going to get away from it. The missile itself is also designed to bias its impact on the nose of the aircraft so as to kill the pilot. If a Patriot is fired at your aircraft, you might as well eject, as there is nothing you can do to get away from it.

Blue-On-Blue! The story of the U.S. Navy F/A-18 that was shot down by a U.S. Army PAC-3 Patriot missile battery during OIF — Four Patriot missiles can be fired from the highly mobile transporter erector launcher (TEL)

“We could clearly tell if a Patriot battery was looking at us, as our ALR-67 radar homing and warning system would clearly indicate that we had been locked up by the missile’s search radar. When this happened, the jet’s Mode 4 IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) was supposed to ‘squawk’ (reply) to the Patriot’s radar with an encrypted signal which indicated to the missile that its ‘target’ was in fact friendly. […] The Patriot batteries were initially operated in automated mode, which meant there was no human interaction in the way it interrogated targets. For 99.9 percent of the time, the system worked fine, but twice it did not, although there is some question as to whether the Tornado GR 4’s IFF functioning correctly when it was shot down.”

Candiloro explains: “We had started to get concerned about the Patriot in automated mode after the Tornado was lost, and when the Hornet was downed we really started to question what exactly the Army was doing with the weapon. Our concerns traveled ‘up the chain’, and that was when the Army changed the Patriot’s engagement parameters from auto to manual, which meant that a human operator had to input the direction to fire. That gave us more peace of mind, but unfortunately, it had cost three lives to get this change made.”

Blue-On-Blue! The story of the U.S. Navy F/A-18 that was shot down by a U.S. Army PAC-3 Patriot missile battery during OIF

“Psychologically, the loss of tow jets to Patriot missiles had a big impact on the air wing,” concludes Candiloro. “Heading into Iraq, I was confident that I could handle literally anything that the enemy threw at me. Indeed, I was more scared of what our guys were going to do to me, and in particular the Patriot batteries. It was a big relief when you finally got out of Iraq and left the last of the Army’s missile batteries behind you near the end of every sortie.”

Photo by Photographers Mate 3rd Class Jonathan Chandler / U.S. Navy

September 10, 2021 0 comment

From the F-4X to the F-4E(S), Israel’s reconnaissance Phantoms’ Odyssey.

by Till Daisd September 10, 2021

written by Till Daisd

The F-4X would have had an increase in engine thrust of 150%, allowing it to cruise at Mach 2.4, reach altitudes of 78,000 feet (23,775 meters), and reach dash speeds of Mach 3.2

The McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II, which Israel purchased in 1969, immediately established itself as the mainstay of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) due to its payload, range, and bombing precision.

In addition to ordering several RF-4s, the IAF also ordered F-4Es. The service reconnaissance assets were pleased to have these aircraft. They were able to fly more sophisticated missions with less risk to people and equipment than had been conceivable with the Mirages and Vautours thanks to their speed, range, and superior camera systems.

The Israel Air Force (IAF) was only the second customer for the RF-4, and these were the first to be outfitted to operate with AIM-9 missiles for self-defense, employing wing pylons with twin launchers, while also maintaining the bombing systems, as Bill Norton explains in his book Air War On The Edge: A History of the Israel Air Force and its aircraft since 1947. The IAF reconnaissance Phantoms were outfitted with the aft fuselage ejector systems for photo-flash cartridges to be employed during night missions, as is typical with RF-4s. The majority of the F-4 squadrons were split up among the reconnaissance aircraft.

From the ultrafast F-4X to the F-4E(S): the Odyssey of Israel's recce Phantoms — IAF F-4Es

According to Norton, “during the War of Attrition recce aircraft were important assets in keeping track of the Egyptian missile boxes and locating targets for follow-up strikes. Photo reconnaissance was especially critical immediately following the War of Attrition. The cease-fire terms required that Egypt freeze its missile batteries in place, and not continue to move SAM boxes closer to the Canal. These terms were very important to Israel, and very hazardous recon flights were made to verify compliance and then monitor movement when the cease-fire terms were clearly violated. Flights into the area were made at 600kts and at such a low altitude that the major hazard was from bird strikes and hitting fishing boat masts.”

The RF-4E aircraft, which the IAF had ordered, did not start to arrive until February 1971, and they did not fly their first mission until March 9. Two IAF F-4Es (coded 17 and 19) were locally modified in a two-month crash program to install a camera in the nose to assist the service in doing this crucial mission. Either a Fairchild KA-52 low-altitude panoramic camera or a Zeiss RMK 15/23 medium-altitude mapping camera could be carried by removing the cannon and making appropriate environmental and electrical changes.

On March 24, 1970, these two aircraft started performing operational duties at 69 Squadron. By September, they had transferred to 201. The rumors that the United States loaned Israel two RF-4Cs as part of Operation Night Light (or Peace Night Lite) between August 1970 and March 1971 may have originated from this IAF initiative, for which Israel allegedly paid $143,000. They were operated by 69 Squadron during their short stay.

As Norton says “it has been suggested that Israel had much earlier exposure to the RF-4. One source asserts that the crews and aircraft of the USAF 38th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron were deployed from Spain to Israel – probably Hatzerim – to provide their services during the Six-Day War. The RF-4Cs were supposedly given IAF markings and operated in the area until Jun. 12. While the American administration had certainly begun to lean towards the Israeli side in the Middle East conflict by 1967, this kind of material assistance during wartime was very unlikely. The IAF could certainly have used the help, freeing up their recon planes for strike missions. Another book records an even more unlikely event in 1962 when what may have been Israeli pilots collected a number of USN F-4Bs at Wheelus AB in Libya and flew them to an undisclosed location in the east. There has also been an extraordinary claim made that the U.S. Navy provided carrier landing training in the Red Sea to some 100 IAF F-4 aircrew in 1971.”

From the ultrafast F-4X to the F-4E(S): the Odyssey of Israel's recce Phantoms — F-4X configuration

Shortly after, the SAM batteries were seen being shifted forward. However, due to the potential repercussions of resumed hostilities, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nor even many Israelis, welcomed this news. The United States specifically did not want anything to scuttle the planned Geneva peace talks.

Nothing was done right away. The next summer, two RF-4Es, one piloted by Aviem Sella, flew fast over southern Syria for 20 minutes to get the first clear images of mobile SA-6 batteries. Months of preparation and training went into the mission, which went completely unnoticed by Syrians because it was carried out on a vacation without top cover or ECM. As in October 1971, when an RF-4 returned with an SA-7 lodged in one engine, the risks of such operations were evident. The IAF started high-altitude reconnaissance flights with their RF-4s in April 1973, which required the crew to wear pressure suits.

According to Norton, the IAF sought a way to preserve this priceless source of intelligence in the face of growing threats to overflights of target areas since the picture intelligence produced by its high-speed RF-4E aircraft was so crucial. The IAF became interested in Americans’ 1,228lb (557kg) CAI KA-90 HIAC-1 ultra-long focal length (66in or 168cm) Long Range Oblique Photography (LOROP). The Israelis were able to monitor events close to their boundaries without physically crossing the border thanks to this amazing camera’s ability to resolve a 10 in (25 cm) object at a 20 nm range. The American RB-57Fs modified to carry the system were offered to the Israelis in exchange for one or more of them. However, the US rejected these inquiries.

General Dynamics (GD) later created the G-139, a podded 1,500lb (680kg) version of the camera. The camera was housed in a massive pod that was 22 feet (6.7 meters) long and 4,000 pounds (1,814 kilograms) in weight, with the associated environmental control system. The G-139 aircraft were exported to Israel in 1971 after approval from the US Congress; they arrived in October. The G-139 was used on the centerline of the RF-4s and on two F-4Es that had undergone special modifications. It is known that at least 119 Squadron operated it but how long the podded camera operated is unknown.

From the ultrafast F-4X to the F-4E(S): the Odyssey of Israel's recce Phantoms — F-4X mockup

The IAF considered the system to be quite efficient, but the Phantom’s speed was severely hindered by the drag of the enormous pod, making it impossible to use. According to reports, this can only reach an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,240 meters) and a top speed of slightly about Mach 1.5. More important photos would be possible at higher altitudes, but the decreased performance also put the pricey and special asset in serious danger should an enemy try to intercept it and prolonged exposure to static anti-aircraft systems.

Norton explains: “To answer the limitations imposed by the G-139, GD began work to boost the performance of the F-4 engines with a series of airframe modifications under a program named Peace Jack. In 1971 the Israelis were invited to participate in the American effort. The Peace Jack airframe was initially to have included a radically revised inlet design and special low-drag external ‘saddle’ tanks. The latter, including pumps, were to provide fluid for an engine pre-compressor cooling (PCC) water injection system to cool the intake air and increase overall engine mass flow. The two 2,500lb-capacity (1,134kg) tanks were to be mounted atop the jet, between the inlet ducts and the spine of the fuselage. These changes would, in theory, have increased engine thrust by 15% to allow dash speeds of Mach 3.2, cruise at Mach 2.4, and flight up to 78,000ft (23,775m) altitude. The conceptual aircraft was tentatively identified as the F-4X, but no actual airframe ever bore this designation.

“By 1974 a reduced size and weight LOROP camera had been designed that could be enclosed in a revised F-4 nose cavity lengthened by 12in (30.5cm) for 70ft³(2m³) of volume. The nose included two windows on the bottom quadrant and two on either side. The entire camera could be rotated to view from any one of these windows. A separate environmental control system in the nose maintained the camera within an optimal temperature range. The design was termed the RF-4X but, again, no actual aircraft was identified with this designation. The IAF provided F-4E 69-7576 in December 1974 to General Dynamics at Fort Worth, Texas, which, over the next five months, served as the basis for a mock-up of the envisioned modifications. The combination was calculated to have allowed a Mach 2.7 cruise speed.”

From the ultrafast F-4X to the F-4E(S): the Odyssey of Israel's recce Phantoms — F-4X mockup

The USAF had been funding the Israelis up to this time, but it eventually withdrew from the Peace Jack effort. The program would need at least another year to build, but the Israelis were in dire need of a functional HIAC capacity. The saddle tanks and PCC were omitted since the IAF could only afford to pay for the camera installation on its own. The S stands for “Special,” thus this design was given the name F-4E(S). A separate KS-87 vertically mounted camera was introduced by the IAF after the HIAC.

The bulky nose could accommodate a variety of extra optical sensors, and the Air Force undoubtedly created more packages over time. On one or both of the canopy sills was a sight that was used to make sure a photo target was in the cameras’ oblique field of vision. Two other IAF F-4Es (69-7567 and -7570) joined 69-7576 in Fort Worth to undergo modification. The first flight of the F-4E(S) was on Dec. 20, 1975, and the first of three modified aircraft was delivered on Jul. 30, 1976, the rest shortly afterward to 199 Squadron.

In an effort to hide the change, the aircraft’s noses were painted to look as though their black radomes were still there while in Texas. After repatriation to Israel, the (S) planes, according to Norton, were kept under the highest level of security until 1998. The type may have taken on more of an electronic warfare role late in the 1980s and ’90s and is known to have had Elta jammers installed (the EL/L-8230 internal unit having been mentioned).

From the ultrafast F-4X to the F-4E(S): the Odyssey of Israel's recce Phantoms — Description: Israeli F-4E Phantom II (IDF designation Kurnass) with camera pod at Israeli Air Force Museum, Hatzerim airbase, Israel. 2006. Kurnass 323 is a “Toad” (or in Hebrew “Karpada”) plane, one of the planes supplied to the IDF from USAF surplus and thus kept in its original USAF green coloring scheme.

Photo by Lockheed Martin, Israeli Air Force, and Bukvoed via Wikipedia

September 10, 2021 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts