Tag:

AW

The pilot who conceived Operation Bolo, Col. John “JB” Stone, takes one last flight with the Wolf Pack

by Till Daisd September 24, 2021

Col. John “JB” Stone came up with the idea for the strategy that would later play a crucial role in aviation history over a few inexpensive beers with Olds and careful consideration of the available resources

The Wolf Pack’s founding in 1967 under Robin Olds’ leadership is well known, although some people might not be aware of the origin of the plan to disguise F-4s as F-105s.

Captain John “JB” Stone of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) was given the task of figuring out how the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) would counter the threat posed by the North Vietnamese MiG-21s at the time. Over a few cheap beers with Olds and a critical analysis of the materials at hand, he came up with the idea that would eventually play a crucial role in the history of aviation.

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 bomb attack. 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 to orbit 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 resounding success. With no USAF losses during the 12-minute encounter, F-4 aircrews downed seven MiG-21s and injured two others or over half of the operating force of the Vietnam People’s Air Force (VPAF).

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.

The narrative of JB Stone comes full circle on his recent visit to Kunsan after 51 years have passed.

In the Olds room at Kunsan, JB talked to the Airmen of the Wolf Pack about Operation Bolo and shared his experiences, knowledge, and stories with them.

He took to the skies once more with the Pack. His flight was hosted by the 80th Fighter Squadron “Juvats,” which is another instance of how the narrative has come full circle since JB’s son flew with the Juvats in the late 1990s.

Photo by USAF

Source: Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea Facebook page

September 24, 2021 0 comment

History

“The Bastard,” the only SR-71C ever built

by Till Daisd September 23, 2021

written by Till Daisd

Because it was a hybrid made of the first YF-12A’s rear fuselage and a functional engineering mockup of an SR-71A forward fuselage created for static testing, SR-71C S/N 61-7981 was known as “The Bastard.”

The intriguing video in this post was recorded at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) in June 2016, and it features SR-71C, “The Bastard,” S/N 61-7981, the final SR-71 to be produced and the only C model Blackbird ever made. Its hybrid construction, which combined the rear fuselage of the first YF-12A (S/N 60-6934) with a functioning engineering model of an SR-71A forward fuselage made for static testing, earned it the moniker “The Bastard”.

After the second of the two B-model trainers crashed on January 11, 1968, a new plane was constructed to take its place. On March 14, 1969, the C model took off for the first time from the Lockheed facility in Palmdale, California, with Lockheed test pilot Steve Belgeau serving as the reconnaissance systems officer and Blackbird Chief Project Pilot Robert J. Gilliland at the controls. On September 3, 1970, it was handed over to the 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing at Beale AFB, California, following flight testing.

The aircraft only had 556.4 flight hours, not counting the 180.9 hours accumulated when it was still registered as YF-12A S/N 60-6934, when it made its final flight on April 11, 1976, and was taken out of service on June 24, 1976. At the Lockheed facility in Palmdale, California, it was subsequently processed for long-term storage.

The aircraft was given to the Hill Aerospace Museum by the Air Force in April 1990 after Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch’s intervention, and the museum immediately started organizing its transfer from Beale AFB to Hill AFB.

In order to establish the best approach to disassembling, packaging, and transporting the aircraft, representatives from the museum, the Air Force Heritage Foundation of Utah, the 67th Aerial Port Squadron, and the 405th Combat Logistics Support Squadron (CLSS) flew to California in July 1990.

Then, in August 1990, a sixteen-person crew from the 405th CLSS traveled to California and disassembled the plane into three main parts and other minor parts, including a J58 engine and start cart, palletizing them all for transportation on a C-5 Galaxy cargo plane. However, no cargo aircraft was immediately available to bring the disassembled parts back to the base after the operation was over. All activities would have to wait.

The majority of the palletized components were retrieved from Beale AFB by officials from the 67th Aerial Port Squadron and the 405th CLSS in the spring of 1991, leaving only the larger portions that needed to be transported by cargo aircraft. One year after the dismantling process started, in August 1991, air transport was ultimately organized using a C-5 from Travis AFB.

The airplane parts were assembled in a sizable hangar owned by the 405th CLSS for reassembly and restoration once all the pieces had finally arrived on base. The challenging two-month process of putting the aircraft back together involves volunteers, Air Force Reservists, and numerous active-duty personnel. The finished airplane was transported to the museum and shown there on October 16, 1991.

Source: U.S. Air Force

Photo by U.S. Air Force

September 23, 2021 0 comment

History

The story of the six-on-six missile shot test

by Till Daisd September 23, 2021

written by Till Daisd

The six-on-six missile shoot was seen as a major success because it showed that the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and the F-14 Tomcat were both ready for active service

The F-14 Tomcat, designed toward the end of the 1960s as a multimission fighter capable of both dogfighting against the most agile fighters and defending U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Groups (CVBG) from raids carried out by Soviet bombers armed with long-range cruise missiles, was equipped with the AWG-9, the most powerful radar ever mounted on a fighter.

The AIM-54 was the largest, deadliest, and longest-range air-to-air missile in the world out of all the weapons that the AWG-9 could support. The Phoenix corrected many flaws in the earlier missiles and added a number of new capabilities, including those that were present in the AIM-7 Sparrow.

As detailed in the book Tomcat! The Grumman F-14 Story by Rear Admiral Paul T. Gillcrist, the first advancement made by the AIM-54 was a significant increase in range from the Sparrow’s 15 miles to an astonishing 100 miles (160 km). As a result, the Phoenix was the perfect weapon to counter the threat posed by Soviet bombers and their cruise missiles. The second new capability introduced by the AIM-54 was strictly linked to its radar: the AWG-9 had the unprecedented ability to track 24 targets and attack 6 of them simultaneously.

The F-14 was the first fighter in the world to be able to engage several aerial targets at once thanks to its armament system. Once more, the Phoenix was the first “fire and forget” missile, making it unnecessary for the Tomcat to maintain radar lock on the target while the AIM-54 was flying in its direction. This capability was made feasible by the tiny Phoenix radar, which guided the missile in its final moments of flight. The fourth innovation was the AIM-54’s strong resilience to countermeasures, a crucial quality in any contemporary air-to-air combat situation.

How the F-14 Tomcat sharpened his teeth: the story of the six-on-six missile shot test

Instead, the so-called “end game,” which is essentially when any other missile, after its rocket motor has burned out, starts to lose speed quickly, providing the target with the chance to maneuver and lowering the probability of the missile’s kill. This was the most significant flaw that the Phoenix system solved.

The Phoenix’s “end game” performance has significantly improved as a result of its unusual trajectory following the launch. The AIM-54 rocket motor reached 80,000 feet at a speed between Mach 4 and Mach 5 because it performed better at high altitudes. The Phoenix began to descend when the rocket motor failed, transforming the altitude into velocity and keeping its ability to turn against a moving target.

An extensive test campaign was carried out between 1972 and November 1973 to evaluate the performance of the new Phoenix capabilities. Even though this test campaign resulted in the most expensive series of air-to-air missile test firings in history, it was necessary to show off the power of the Tomcat weapons system as well as to determine the fate of the F-14 since it was designed around the AIM-54 concept.

Two aircraft, the F-14A-15-GR, BuNo 157983 (the fourth Tomcat built), and the F-14A-40-GR, BuNo 157988 (the ninth Tomcat built), participated in the live missile firing program.

On April 28, 1972, Tomcat began firing AIM-54 missiles at various (simulated) targets, including cruise missiles, high-altitude bombers, and fast-maneuvering fighters. One shot was also fired from a very far distance—120 miles (193 km)—when an F-14 engaged and shot down a target drone.

On November 21, 1973, when the infamous “six-on-six missile shot” occurred, the final test was carried out. The Pacific Missile Test Center, formerly known as the current Naval Air Warfare Center, was based at Point Mugu. On that day, Commander John R. “Smoke” Wilson Jr. and his Radar Intercept Office (RIO) Lieutenant Commander Jack Hawver, the crew who carried out the entire Phoenix test campaign, took off from there with their F-14 equipped with a full Phoenix load: four were on pallets in the semi-submerged wells in the underside of the fuselage, and two more AIM-54s were mounted one on each wing station pylon. This time, they had to fire six missiles at six distinct targets simultaneously.

Wilson and Hawver launched all six missiles in 38 seconds once they reached a height of 25,000 feet. Three QT-33s (the drone version of the old jet trainer), two BQM-34A aerial targets, and one BQM-34E were the targets for the AIM-54 missiles. Wilson fired the first Phoenix missile, followed by Hawver with the second through fifth missiles, and then Wilson once more with the final AIM-54.

Four targets, which were simulated bombers (two QT-33s, one BQM-34A, and one BQM-34E), were hit directly while the missiles were flying in unison under the supervision of the Tomcat’s fire control system. The Phoenix radar broke the lock on the other BQM-34A due to a failure at the flight control module, and the final AIM-54 missed the final QT-33 due to a Phoenix radar antenna malfunction.

The test ended with a score of four direct hits, with one AIM-54 missing its target due to the BQM-34A avionics failure, as the following video (which is the original six-on-six missile shot clip) demonstrates.

The six-on-six missile shoot was seen as a significant success because it showed that the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and the F-14 Tomcat were both ready for active service.

Photo by U.S. Navy

September 23, 2021 0 comment

History

When the Hunter pilot who flew over Tower Bridge to commemorate the RAF’s 50th anniversary

by Till Daisd September 19, 2021

written by Till Daisd

“I’d had absolutely no idea that Tower Bridge would be there. It was easy enough to fly over it, but the idea of flying through the spans suddenly struck me. I had just ten seconds to grapple with the seductive proposition that few ground attack pilots of any nationality could have resisted. Years of fast low-level strike flying made the decision simple . . . ,” Alan Pollock, former RAF Hunter pilot

On April 5, 1968, Royal Air Force (RAF) Hunter pilot Alan Pollock engaged in unauthorized low-flying over some London landmarks before flying through the span of Tower Bridge across the Thames. This occurrence is known as the Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident. His actions were intended to honor the 50th anniversary of the RAF’s formation and to protest the Ministry of Defense for failing to recognize it.

Due to British Defense Minister Duncan Sandys’ 1957 Defense White Paper, the British defense industry experienced a shift in emphasis from manned aircraft to guided missiles in the 1960s. Low morale prevailed throughout the aerial services of the British armed forces, and the British aircraft industry had fallen into general decline.

Pollock admired the RAF and believed a flypast over London would be a fitting way to mark its 50th anniversary. There had been a few parades and an official supper, but no flypast. He thought that this was a terrible slight.

“One thing that was in the Air Force’s blood was that you celebrated in the air, not on the ground,” Pollock, now 82, says in an article that appeared in the Daily Mail.

He was serving with No. 1 Squadron, the RAF’s oldest squadron, at the time. As a result, he felt it was his duty to take the initiative in making sure the half-centenary was appropriately observed. Pollock made the decision to put on his own flypast.

On April 4, he and three other Hunter pilots from his squadron had flown from their base at West Raynham in Norfolk to RAF Tangmere in Sussex, the former home of No. 1 Squadron, where they were helping to celebrate the base being given the freedom of the city of Chichester. He decided that the following day, on their way back, he would make a detour over the capital.

On April 4, he and three other Hunter pilots from his squadron had flown from their base in West Raynham, Norfolk, to RAF Tangmere, the former location of No. 1 Squadron, where they were taking part in the base’s celebration of Chichester’s independence. He decided to take a detour through the city on their return trip the following day.

“It was worth flying over London, even if I was going to get court-martialled,” Alan says. At the very least, a trial would give him a chance to have his say on the problems facing the Air Force.

On the morning of April 5, not long after takeoff, Alan separated himself from the other Hunters.

By typing out coded messages on his radio transmitter, he informed his fellow pilots that he had lost visual contact and that he was having trouble sustaining spoken communication.

The story of the Hunter pilot who performed a flypast through Tower Bridge to mark RAF's 50th anniversary — Fg Off Tony ‘Bugs’ Bendell being briefed during an IV(AC) Squadron Sylt Armament Practice Camp by Fg Off Alan Pollock (right in dyed, rifle green 26 (AC) Sqn flying suit) probably in March 1958

He arrived at Heathrow Airport in a short amount of time, flying low to avoid commercial aircraft, and made a right turn to head for Richmond Park and then the Thames.

As Pollock recalls, flying over the river would be the safest and quietest route through the capital. “I went over the Thames because I didn’t want to cause any trouble.”

Keeping to the middle of the river and keeping an eye out for helicopters, he descended to a height of around 150 feet before starting to fly over the bridges.

Angry by defense budget cuts and what he perceived to be the Labour government’s involvement in the lack of anniversary celebrations, Pollock made his way to Downing Street and Parliament. He could see Westminster in the distance as he crossed the Vauxhall Bridge. He turned on Hunter’s throttle and started three low, loud circuits of Parliament just as Big Ben signaled noon.

“I put the power on then. I thought: ‘Stuff it, let them hear some noise!’ The funny thing was that at the time, they were discussing noise abatement.”

Iain Duncan Smith’s father, the Spitfire ace Wilfred Duncan Smith, reportedly claimed Pollock later that he heard his engines from the sixth story of the Ministry of Defense building while he spoke to Sir John Grandy, chief of the Air Staff, according to Daily Mail.

Sir John looked up towards the sky, trying to see the plane. Duncan Smith had to put him right, telling him, “No, look down there!”

Meanwhile, Alan was searching for Downing Street. ‘I wanted to make a noise over No. 10 as well. I didn’t have a target map so I couldn’t see where it was.’

As he flew over the RAF Memorial beside Whitehall and continued downstream into the city, he waved Hunter’s wings in homage. The airplane safely passed over London Bridge, Hungerford Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, Blackfriars Bridge, and Southwark Bridge.

Then he was in for a surprise. ‘There, staring me in the face, was Tower Bridge. I’d forgotten it was there!

Later, he described his choice to fly through Tower Bridge in the book Empire of the Clouds: When Britain’s Aircraft Ruled the World.

“Until this very instant, I’d had absolutely no idea that, of course, Tower Bridge would be there. It was easy enough to fly over it, but the idea of flying through the spans suddenly struck me. I had just ten seconds to grapple with the seductive proposition that few ground attack pilots of any nationality could have resisted. My brain started racing to reach a decision. Years of fast, low-level strike flying made the decision simple…”

Pollock added: “Right at the last minute, as my cockpit canopy was just below the bridge and the girders were all around me, in that microsecond I remembered I’d got a tail fin behind and I thought: ‘I’m going to lose the fin!’”

The Hunter made it through somehow. A cyclist on the bridge lost control of his bike out of fear and tore his trousers. The Tower Bridge Watchman, George Tapper, was nearby. “There was the most thunderous roar. I looked up and, whoomph, a big silver jet roared by,” he recalled.

He flew inverted over numerous airfields (Wattisham, Lakenheath, and Marham) while traveling to his base at RAF West Raynham, where he was formally arrested by Flying Officer Roger Gilpin an hour later. He was aware that his flying privileges would likely be revoked as a result of this show.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, his unit was posted to North Africa without him while he remained in charge.

Alan’s unit received hundreds of congratulations messages from RAF colleagues and the members of the public, as well as a barrel of beer from British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC).

An all-party motion of support, tabled in the House of Commons, was signed by six MPs (four of whom had been in the RAF).

Then, for medical reasons, he was invalidated from the RAF. This prevented Pollock from explaining the reason behind his stunt and maybe obtaining public support, leading to a court-martial and embarrassing the government.

Pollock was the first pilot to do it in a jet aircraft, even though earlier pilots had flown beneath the upper span of Tower Bridge.

Photo by Michael Rondot via collectair.co.uk, Alan Pollock image Royal Air Force via Jever Steam Laundry, Tower Bridge image and Mike Freer – Touchdown-aviation via Wikipedia

September 19, 2021 0 comment

History

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

History

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.

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

History

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

History

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

History

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.

“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.

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

History

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.”

“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

Newer Posts

Older Posts