Tag:

planes

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

by Till Daisd June 8, 2024

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All aspect Sidewinders

Smith continues

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

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

Smith concludes;

‘I will never forget that comment.’

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

June 8, 2024 0 comment

History

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

by Till Daisd June 7, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS

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

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

Command and control battle management aircraft

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

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

Hostile fighters Vs AWACS

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

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

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

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

Long-Range Missiles Vs AWACS

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

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

E-3 AWACS contributed to the invention of stealth technology

Grupé continues;

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

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

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

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

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

June 7, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

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

by Till Daisd June 6, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The EF-111A Raven

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

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

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

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

EF-111A EWO navigator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Mine was down.’

Asymmetric Slats

He continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Departure end cable arrestment

‘We were planning for a departure end cable arrestment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EF-111A Raven Cable arrestment

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

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

Howard concludes;

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

‘Postscript:

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

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

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

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

June 6, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

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

by Till Daisd June 5, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The AIM-54 Phoenix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doomsday loadout: a rare event

Riley continues;

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

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

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

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

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

Riley concludes;

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

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

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

Photo by U.S. Navy

June 5, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

When the Warthog became Snowhog

by Till Daisd June 4, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The A-10 Warthog

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

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

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

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

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

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

From A-10 Warthog to A-10 Snowhog

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

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

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

Cool Snow Hog

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

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

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

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

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

June 4, 2024 0 comment

History

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

by Till Daisd June 3, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

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

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

What did the Germans think of the B-17?

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

The Luftwaffe and the B-17 Flying Fortress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No cause for anxiety about the American aircraft

Brutananadilewski continues;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brutananadilewski concludes;

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

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

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

June 3, 2024 0 comment

History

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

by Till Daisd June 2, 2024

written by Till Daisd

Joe “Hoser” Satrapa

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

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

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

Fighting against Joe “Hoser” Satrapa F-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Vorboschka’ manoeuvre

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

‘Wrong again.

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

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

The F-14 Tomcat was eye-watering

Rucker concludes;

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

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

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

June 2, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

During a scramble, a pilot of a USAF F-86D remembers activating his Sabre Dog’s afterburner in the hangar to take off

by Till Daisd June 1, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The F-86D Sabre Dog

To counter the growing Soviet threat, the US government and USAF started a massive effort in the late 1940s to establish an effective defense of US airspace. The USAF selected the Northrop F-89 Scorpion as an interim aircraft and the Convair “1954 Interceptor” project as their primary aircraft to support this aim. The Air Force considered two aircraft as alternatives to the Scorpion, according to McChord Air Museum: a modified Lockheed TF-80C, which became the F-94 Starfire, and a heavily modified F-95A (F-86D), an all-weather interceptor version of the F-86A Sabre. This decision was made after numerous delays in the F-89 development program.

On December 22, 1949, the Sabre Dog, designated YF-95, completed its first flight. On July 24, 1950, the designation was modified to YF-86D. The F-86A and the Sabre Dog had only 25% in common externally, but otherwise, the two aircraft were very different from one another. Along with being the first USAF aircraft with an all-missile armament, the F-86D was also the first all-weather interceptor piloted by a single person, handling both the radar and flight controls.

Additionally, the Sabre Dog had an afterburning engine (a General Electric J47-GE-17 turbojet with an electronically controlled fuel scheduling system that relieved the pilot of the tedious task of continuously monitoring engine behavior).

The F-86D that the Afterburner in the Hangar to Take Off during a Scramble

David Ross, former F-86D Sabre Dog fighter pilot in the US Air Force, recalls on Quora.

“In the late fifties, while flying an F-86D, on cross-countries I would land at an intermediate base for fuel. As soon as the fuel truck left I would preflight the plane, start the engine and leave. As for letting the engine ‘warm-up’ there is no need for that.

“To illustrate this our alert hangars had doors front and back and on the floor was an iron ring to tie the aux-power cable to. This design was to enable a faster scramble time.

“One day I told my crew chief to tie the start cable to this ring and get the loose stuff cleared out of the hanger, because if we got a scramble I was going straight to afterburner on start.

“We did get a scramble and I started the engine and went to full throttle and afterburner right in the hangar.

“I was airborne just about the time I got to the runway, everything worked as it was designed to do. There was one problem though, the crew chief said I blew stuff out the back of the hangar, with the afterburner, that people didn’t even know was in the hangar.”

Ross concludes;

“We never tried that kind of scramble again.”

Photo by U.S. Air Force

USAF F-86D Pilot recalls when He Lit his Sabre Dog’s Afterburner in the Hangar to Take Off during a Scramble. And tells why He Never did it Again.

June 1, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

KC-135 Crew Chief recalls when his Stratotanker low on fuel had to give 6,000 pounds of fuel to an F-4

by Till Daisd May 31, 2024

written by Till Daisd

KC-135 Stratotanker crew providing support of trans-pacific ferry missions

In February 1977, while on deployment to Andersen AFB, Guam, and the Pacific Tanker Task Force, the crew of a KC-135 Stratotanker belonging to the 7th Air Refueling Squadron (7 ARS) achieved an impressive refueling record, according to the Carswell Sentinel, a squadron-based newspaper at Carswell Air Force Base (AFB) [Carswell AFB no longer exists; it is now Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, Ft. Worth].

According to an article in the Carswell Sentinel, Capt. E. Brady King, the information officer for the 7 ARS, stated that the KC-135 crew was sent to Andersen to support F-4 and A-7 trans-Pacific ferry missions as well as an F-15 re-deployment mission from Korea to the United States.

Emergency air refueling of an F-4

“The most significant accomplishment of the crew, was the emergency air refueling of an F-4 being ferried from Hickam AFB, Hawaii, to Andersen AFB,” said Captain King, “As the crew was leading the F-4 into Guam, the weather rapidly deteriorated and the primary approach aids (electronic means to descend through the clouds to land) were inoperative,” explained King.

“Because of low fuel the aircraft could not divert to Kadena, Okinawa,” he added. The KC-135 crew orbited over Guam while the F-4 attempted six landing approaches.

The F-4 pilot told the Andersen command post that he could not wait for the Andersen strip alert aircraft to take off after the sixth attempt failed and that he required fuel right away. The KC-135 crew took control at that point.

The aircraft commander, Captain Larry C. Beam, proclaimed an emergency and climbed to refuel the F-4. The F-4 was successfully refueled with 6,000 pounds thanks to the excellent coordination of the pilot-navigation team and the calm, confident actions of the boom operator.

Following its refueling, the F-4 landed at Agana Naval Air Station, Guam. With just 4,500 pounds of fuel remaining, Captain Beam landed at Andersen AFB and turned off his engines despite the bad local weather. Thus, a valuable F-4 aircraft was preserved thanks to the careful, deliberate actions of the KC-135 crew.

KC-135 Stratotanker crew chief first TDY

Earl Belz, former KC-135 crew chief, said;

‘I was the assistant crew chief on the KC 135 in this story.

‘It was my first TDY as a new Air Force crew chief. I was part of a pacific tanker task force that was ferrying F-4s from Hickam airbase in Hawaii to Andersen airbase in Guam. My tanker was on approach to land at Guam. When the pilot was asked to go back up and refuel the Phantom because it was almost out of fuel.

‘As a new crew chief, I was surprised that we went back up and refilled the Phantom as our fuel was pretty low in the tanker. However, we climb the altitude refuel the Phantom and managed to land at Andersen with only 4500 pounds of fuel registering in the fuel totalizer.

‘Part of our Pacific tanker, task force deployment, took us to Clark airbase in the Philippines and the crew chief and myself had our own patch (below) made signifying our participation, and that refuel.

‘The following patch instead is the official Pacific tanker task force patch that we were given to wear on our flight suit.

KC-135 Crew Chief recalls when his Stratotanker low on fuel had to give 6,000 pounds of fuel to an F-4 that failed six approaches to Andersen AFB because of bad weather

‘I have saved that article all these years along with those patches because that’s what a geek does.

Photos of the mission

Belz adds;

‘These four photos are ones I took from my KC-135 during that mission.

‘In the first photo taken from the cockpit, you can see an F-4 being refueled by another KC-135.

‘The second photo was taken from the over wing hatch window and shows one of the three F-4s we were ferrying to Guam.

‘The third photo is one of the F-4s moving into position for a top-off. That grease pencil writing you see in the boom pod photo is something the boom operator does to help remind him of the call sign of the fighters that he communicates with.

‘I took this photo from the cockpit and is two F-4s on a KC-135 that was part of the Pacific Tanker task force.’

Photo by US Air Force and Earl Belz

May 31, 2024 0 comment

Cold War

The SR-71 pilot remembers when his Blackbird was hit by a missile fired by a Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat

by Till Daisd May 30, 2024

written by Till Daisd

The MiG-25 Foxbat

The USSR revealed the existence of the MiG-25 (NATO reporting name “Foxbat”), which looked to be the most lethal fighter aircraft in the world in the late 1960s. This aircraft could outpace any fighter in the air and any other military aircraft except the SR-71 Blackbird.

The Foxbat could reach heights of up to 78,000 feet when equipped with two R-40 missiles (designated by NATO as AA-6 “Acrid”), but it could only reach 68,900 feet when all four missiles were deployed. By contrast, the Habu flew at cruise speeds above Mach 3 at over 80,000 feet.

However, Col. Darrel Cobb himself says in this interview with his son Chris that after an SR-71 Blackbird, he was piloting was fired on by a MiG-25,

The “holy grail” of the soviet air defense system: shooting down an SR-71 Blackbird

‘Operational missions.

‘First, let me assure you; we never broke President Eisenhower’s promise to cease overflying the Soviet Union. We remained over international water – 12 mi offshore.

‘All of my operational flying was from Kadena, Okinawa. Area of interest was Vietnam; Korea; Vladivostok, USSR; China. Later, we flew transatlantic & return from Seymour Johnson, NC supporting the Israel-Arab war. After I left the program, the SR flew from Mildenhall, England & Bodo, Norway.

‘We already touched on missions against Vietnam & the only night mission.

‘Today let’s cover “north missions.”

‘Take off, refuel & head into the Sea of Japan; between Japan & south Korea. Accelerated to operational speed – 3.20. Head directly at Vladivostok. headquarters of USSR air defense; and test/r & d of new radar & intercept development. 2200 mph guaranteed to light up all the radar & intercept systems they had.

‘A MiG-25 interceptor squadron was based just outside of Vladivostok. The “holy grail” of the soviet air defense system was to shoot down an SR-71.

‘Turn north up the Sea of Japan & make a U-turn back down the USSR coast (12 mi offshore) with ELINT & SIGINT recorders going full bore. Photo cameras looking oblique into the USSR, updating the interceptor air order of battle. Head south east till past Vladivostok then turn slightly left then right to cross Korea at the DMZ. Photo cameras updating N. Korea force readiness to resume hostilities against S. Korea.

SR-71 Blackbird fired on by a MiG-25

‘Continue down the Yellow Sea coast of China. All sensors evaluating China’s threat to Taiwan. Turn left- decel & land at Kadena. I flew this profile several times during the 4 years I flew ops missions. One of these got very, very thrilling. Southbound, passing Vladivostok, Reg (my RSO) announced;

‘”We’ve got a fighter locked on – it’s gotta be a MiG-25″

‘”Our DEF [Defensive Electronic Gear, DEF. It Provided ground-to-air and air-to-air missile protection. Still Classified. Def systems were labeled DEF A,B,C,E and G. Later modifications to the DEF Systems resulted in DEF A2, C2, H and M systems. Nearing retirement of the SR-71, a programmable DEF labeled A2C could defeat all known threats to the Blackbirds] is blanketing all beautifully.”

‘”Oops – he just fired – – we’ve got a missile locked on”

‘”Our def has shifted to its missile magic”

‘”There – lock’s broken. Missile’s back in search”

‘”That’s weird – sounds like the missile’s locked on – but not locked on us”

‘”He’s gone – coming up on the “s” turn to the DMZ.”’

Fast forward to late 1976 Col. Cobb retired from the Air Force.

MiG-25 at risk of being shot down by its own missile

Cobb continues;

‘I’m retired! Learning that retirement means no days off; no vacation; no holidays; big pay cut.

‘I find the aircraft TV channel & history channel. Lots & lots of SR-71 films. I avidly watch at every opportunity. In my den, glued to the TV & today’s SR-71 show, & who do I see comparing the MiG-25 with the SR-71??

SR-71 pilot recalls that time his Blackbird flew so fast that he and his RSO landed at Kadena AB two hours before they took off from Beale AFB beating the sun

‘You’re right — Lt. Victor Belenko!

‘He was totally gobsmacked; his MiG-25 burned up the engines getting to Mach 3 yet the SR’s cruise speed was greater than 3.0.

‘Belenko is the one who said that the Holy Grail of Soviet air defense was to shoot down an SR.

‘He told of how they would pre-position ahead of the SR’s radar track and had to zoom up to get a lock on & fire their missile.

‘Belenko stressed how quickly & precisely they had to perform because the window of opportunity was so very short.

‘Their target was traveling at 3600 ft/sec. Faster than a speeding bullet.

‘He described in detail how precise the post-firing breakaway had to be executed to avoid getting shot down by their own missile; talking as though they found this out the “hard way.”’

Cobb Concludes;

‘Man talk about intense attention – – I’m quickly mentally replaying that tape from the inter-phone – –

‘”We’ve got a fighter locked on – it’s gotta be a Mig-25″

‘”Our DEF is blanketing all beautifully.”

‘”Oops – he just fired – – we’ve got a missile locked on”

‘”Our def has shifted to its missile magic”

‘”There – lock’s broken. Missile’s back in search.

‘”That’s weird – sounds like the missile’s locked on – but not locked on us.”’

What happened to the missile fired by the MiG-25 Foxbat at the SR-71 Blackbird?

What happened to the missile fired by the MiG-25? Could it have locked onto the Foxbat itself? Could the SR-71 DEF have deceived it? We’ll never know.

But since the SR-71’s cruising speed was more than the MiG-25’s Acrid missiles’ maximum speed, we might presume that the Blackbird just outran the AA-6. The MiG-25 was unable to carry out a head-on intercept, and there was no chance that a Foxbat could conduct a tail-chase intercept of an SR-71. The Foxbat’s fire control system and radar were insufficiently advanced to handle the challenges of a head-on intercept at closing speeds that would exceed Mach 5.

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

Photo by Dmitriy Pichugin via Wikimedia and U.S. Air Force

May 30, 2024 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts