F-4 chaff/flare loads

[Bob Martin]

Anyone have data on typical chaff/flare loads for F-4's, both in Vietnam and
modern day? Thanks

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

"Flying, like the sea, is not inherently dangerous... just extremely
unforgiving"

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:08:02 -0400, "Bob Martin"

Post by Bob Martin
Anyone have data on typical chaff/flare loads for F-4's, both in Vietnam and
modern day? Thanks

No flares on F-4s in SEA. (Photo-flash carts on RF-4s only). No
self-protection chaff carts either. We carried cardboard boxes (about
the size of a box of Xmas tree tinsel) in the speedbrake wells. Open
the boards to deploy. Try not to use speed brakes earlier in the
mission. One time use.

Chaff for corridors was mostly chaff bombs dropped by specific fragged
flights. Very limited deployment at end of '72 of ALE-38 chaff
dispenser for corridor laying.

ALE-40 dispensers were added to F-4Es around '74-'75. We never got
them on C models in USAFE at all.

[Buzzer]

Post by Ed Rasimus
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:08:02 -0400, "Bob Martin"

Post by Bob Martin
Anyone have data on typical chaff/flare loads for F-4's, both in Vietnam and
modern day? Thanks

No flares on F-4s in SEA. (Photo-flash carts on RF-4s only). No
self-protection chaff carts either. We carried cardboard boxes (about
the size of a box of Xmas tree tinsel) in the speedbrake wells. Open
the boards to deploy. Try not to use speed brakes earlier in the
mission. One time use.

ECM bring your brooms to the arming area. Grumble, grumble, pilot.

Post by Ed Rasimus
Chaff for corridors was mostly chaff bombs dropped by specific fragged
flights. Very limited deployment at end of '72 of ALE-38 chaff
dispenser for corridor laying.

Did you ever hear of anyone in SEA flying the old ALE-2 chaff tanks.
The ones used on T-33 along with the I-band ALQ-72 for interceptor
training at some bases. I was at Tyndall and around 1973 we got a
message in to make our chaff tanks 100% OR and ready to ship out. The
mechanism that held the chaff down hadn't been used in years because
the T-33 wasn't exactly a high speed aircraft.
They might have dropped that idea come to think of it since we put the
same inards of the tank inside on the rotating weapons door of the
f-101 and at high speed the chaff and tapes were sucked out right over
the dispenser. F-101 would land with a 100 ft. of chaff tapes flapping
in the wind from the weapons door.
I left the base before hearing what happened with the tanks..

Post by Ed Rasimus
ALE-40 dispensers were added to F-4Es around '74-'75. We never got
them on C models in USAFE at all.

[Tom Cooper]

Post by Ed Rasimus
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:08:02 -0400, "Bob Martin"

Post by Bob Martin
Anyone have data on typical chaff/flare loads for F-4's, both in Vietnam and
modern day? Thanks

No flares on F-4s in SEA. (Photo-flash carts on RF-4s only). No
self-protection chaff carts either. We carried cardboard boxes (about
the size of a box of Xmas tree tinsel) in the speedbrake wells. Open
the boards to deploy. Try not to use speed brakes earlier in the
mission. One time use.

Ed,
do you possibly know the reasons why no chaff/flare dispensers were mounted
on Phantoms at the time (and, AFAIK, for most of the 1970s)?

From the standpoint of our days this appears as a very strange measure to
me: given how many R-13 shots could have been averted over Vietnam alone....

BTW, from what I know a USAF Lt.Col. who was in the back-seat of the IIAF
RF-4E when this was intercepted by a Soviet AF MiG-21 deep inside the Soviet
airspace, in November 1973, used photo-flash cartriges to decoy four R-13s:
this was the reason the Soviet pilot had no other way out but to ram the
Phantom (one could find this story on the walls of quite a few former Soviet
AF bases in East Germany). The MiG-pilot was killed when his plane
disintegrated, while the Iranain pilot and the USAF WSO survived. Although
the engagement happened by the day, the crew of that RF-4E said the
cartriges were so powerful, they had a feeling somebody turned a second sun
right behind their backs each time one was deployed....

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Ed Rasimus]

Post by Tom Cooper

Post by Ed Rasimus
No flares on F-4s in SEA. (Photo-flash carts on RF-4s only). No
self-protection chaff carts either. We carried cardboard boxes (about
the size of a box of Xmas tree tinsel) in the speedbrake wells. Open
the boards to deploy. Try not to use speed brakes earlier in the
mission. One time use.

Ed,
do you possibly know the reasons why no chaff/flare dispensers were mounted
on Phantoms at the time (and, AFAIK, for most of the 1970s)?
From the standpoint of our days this appears as a very strange measure to
me: given how many R-13 shots could have been averted over Vietnam alone....
Tom Cooper

They weren't mounted because they didn't yet exist. The ALE-40 (the
blister dispenser bolted on the side of the wing pylons) came into
production around '73 or '74 after the air war was over. As I
mentioned, the operational E-models got them, but they never got
retrofitted to the C's that were still active. (I don't know about the
D's.)

What's an R-13? Do you mean SA-7 or Atoll?

SA-7 was pretty much a "no threat" for fast movers in SEA. Atoll was a
player, but if you knew the guy was back there, you maneuvered to
defeat. If you didn't know he was there, flares wouldn't have been
much good. A lot of the MiG successes were unseen blow throughs where
flares wouldn't have been employed.

[Tom Cooper]

Post by Ed Rasimus
They weren't mounted because they didn't yet exist. The ALE-40 (the
blister dispenser bolted on the side of the wing pylons) came into
production around '73 or '74 after the air war was over. As I
mentioned, the operational E-models got them, but they never got
retrofitted to the C's that were still active. (I don't know about the
D's.)

I see. Thanks.

One more question, if you don't mind: what was the chaff/flare dispenser
that could have been mounted into one of the rear Sparrow-bays, and when was
it introduced?

Post by Ed Rasimus
What's an R-13? Do you mean SA-7 or Atoll?

That's the original service designation for the AA-2 Atoll (K-13 was the
design designation).

I know the SA-7 was not that widespread nor as a serious a threat as some
other stuff at the time, and remember from reding Mitchel's "Clashes" and
few other books about the air war in SEA how often it happened that the
first warning from a MiG was either a Phantom or a Thud going up in flames.

But, in several cases the attacks were noticed when one of the crews saw
contrails from R-13s being underway behind them. Clear, the R-13 could't do
much against a maneuvering aircraft (AFAIK any maneuver beyond 2g was too
much for it to track), but, IMHO, perhaps the use of flare-dispensers
could've saved a crew or two more?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Guy Alcala]

<snip>

Post by Tom Cooper

Post by Ed Rasimus
What's an R-13? Do you mean SA-7 or Atoll?

That's the original service designation for the AA-2 Atoll (K-13 was the
design designation).

Tom, IIRR the AA-2A (K-13) was designated the R-3S in service, while the later
versions switched to R-13 (M and M2 IIRC) to bring the service designation in
line with the design designation. I've got an old Air International article by
Piotr Butowski around here somewhere; he was given access to Vympel's chief
designer as well as their museum, and the different models were described.
There was also a cutaway of what we would call an AA-2D, which IIRR was
designated the R-13M2.

Post by Tom Cooper
I know the SA-7 was not that widespread nor as a serious a threat as some
other stuff at the time, and remember from reding Mitchel's "Clashes" and
few other books about the air war in SEA how often it happened that the
first warning from a MiG was either a Phantom or a Thud going up in flames.
But, in several cases the attacks were noticed when one of the crews saw
contrails from R-13s being underway behind them. Clear, the R-13 could't do
much against a maneuvering aircraft (AFAIK any maneuver beyond 2g was too
much for it to track), but, IMHO, perhaps the use of flare-dispensers
could've saved a crew or two more?

Carrying chaff dispensers would have been far more use in general, given the
relative likelihood of encountering MiGs and SAMs/AAA. The R-3S could be easily
outmaneuvered if seen in time, or decoyed by the sun, clouds, or the sun shining
on water.

Guy

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Ed Rasimus
They weren't mounted because they didn't yet exist. The ALE-40 (the
blister dispenser bolted on the side of the wing pylons) came into
production around '73 or '74 after the air war was over. As I
mentioned, the operational E-models got them, but they never got
retrofitted to the C's that were still active. (I don't know about the
D's.)

I saw an F-4D at Oshkosh about fifteen years ago that had previously been at
RAF Lakenheath, it was brought in by the Minnesota ANG from Duluth. They
had some blisters on the rear of the pylons that I was not familiar with. I
asked the AC about them, he said one side was a chaff dispenser and the
other was flares. They were added some time after the aircraft left
Lakenheath in 1977.

[Guy Alcala]

Post by Ed Rasimus

Post by Tom Cooper

Post by Ed Rasimus
No flares on F-4s in SEA. (Photo-flash carts on RF-4s only). No
self-protection chaff carts either. We carried cardboard boxes (about
the size of a box of Xmas tree tinsel) in the speedbrake wells. Open
the boards to deploy. Try not to use speed brakes earlier in the
mission. One time use.

Ed,
do you possibly know the reasons why no chaff/flare dispensers were mounted
on Phantoms at the time (and, AFAIK, for most of the 1970s)?
From the standpoint of our days this appears as a very strange measure to
me: given how many R-13 shots could have been averted over Vietnam alone....
Tom Cooper

They weren't mounted because they didn't yet exist. The ALE-40 (the
blister dispenser bolted on the side of the wing pylons) came into
production around '73 or '74 after the air war was over. As I
mentioned, the operational E-models got them, but they never got
retrofitted to the C's that were still active. (I don't know about the
D's.)

The ALE-40 may not have existed, but (according to Thornborough, pg. 16) the navy
was using the ALE-18 starting from April of 1966, at the same time they installed
the ALQ-51, APR-25 RHAWS and APR-27 LWR (for some reason the navy used the latter
rather than the APR-26). The ALE-29 seems to have replaced the ALE-18 from 1967
or 1968, and I think the ALE-39 was available before the end of the war. There's
no obvious reason why the air force couldn't have used dispensers on their
tactical a/c at the same time. Hell, the F-105D had its dispenser (an ALE-2)
removed from the spec as a cost cutting measure (along with the APS-92 RWR and
ALQ-31 jammer), in about 1959 or 1960.

Guy

[Juvat]

Post by Tom Cooper
BTW, from what I know a USAF Lt.Col. who was in the back-seat of the IIAF

Really? By 1980 no photo-flash cart in the USAF would have done that,
wrong band of the IR spectrum...versus the IR seeker's spectrum. Thank
goodness for early generation technology theft.

Post by Tom Cooper
the engagement happened by the day, the crew of that RF-4E said the
cartriges were so powerful, they had a feeling somebody turned a second sun
right behind their backs each time one was deployed....

Interesting that they had photo-flash carts for a day mission and not
wall-to-wall chaff bundles in the cart breeches. And awfully sharp of
the WSO to select the "Night" position on the camera control panel so
he could puke the carts...that's what he'd have to do in a USAF RF-4C
in 1973, according to an RF-4C-1 (1975) the USAF didn't have IRCM
flares yet.

Juvat

[Tom Cooper]

To be honest, all the details you mentioned here were completely unknown to
me so far, Juvat. Thanks for your remarks.

What I explained above is what I was told by the people who were there. They
were also very positive about the performance of the Iranian pilot of that
Phantom, Maj. Shokounia (killed by the regime in Tehran, in 1980). He and
the USAF Lt.Col. were, BTW, exchanged with the Russians for a box with a
film from some Soviet satellite, that fell into an Iranian oil-field by
mistake.

Otherwise, the USAF and the IIAF were flying intensively beyond the Soviet
borders with recce Phantoms already since 1970: initially, two USAF RF-4Cs
were used, but later the Iranians purchased RF-4Es. Most of the missions had
mixed crews, with Iranians usually flying and the USAF officers controlling
the equipment. According to what I learned about these flights so far (the
details about most of which are still kept secret for some unknown reason),
the RF-4Es used for these missions were tightly guarded and exclusively
equipped (so exclusively, that they had permanent guards while on the
ground). AFAIK, they've got even IR-linescaners (which should have been some
pretty exotic stuff at the time). Surely, only really experienced and
"smart" people were tasked to fly these missions.

BTW, in addition to the example lost in 1973, another IIAF RF-4E (again with
a mixed crew) was shot down by the Soviets sometimes in 1977 or so,
apparently in revenge for their MiG-25R shot down by an Iranian F-4E (which
almost run out of fuel while trying to intercept). I don't know what
happened with the crew, but I guess they survived too. Interestingly, the
USAF supplied two recce-Phantoms from own stocks to Iran as replacement for
every example these have lost in operations over the USSR. The situation
culminated in October 1978, with Iranian F-14s intercepting a MiG-25R high
over the Casspian Sea: subsequently the Soviets ceased all flights, and the
story was over.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[John Hairell]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:21:31 GMT, "Tom Cooper" <***@acig.org> wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Post by Tom Cooper
According to what I learned about these flights so far (the
details about most of which are still kept secret for some unknown reason),
the RF-4Es used for these missions were tightly guarded and exclusively
equipped (so exclusively, that they had permanent guards while on the
ground). AFAIK, they've got even IR-linescaners (which should have been some
pretty exotic stuff at the time).

The US Army had IR linescan on OV-1s in the early '60s....

John Hairell (***@erols.com)

[Token]

Post by Juvat

Post by Tom Cooper
BTW, from what I know a USAF Lt.Col. who was in the back-seat of the IIAF

Really? By 1980 no photo-flash cart in the USAF would have done that,
wrong band of the IR spectrum...versus the IR seeker's spectrum. Thank
goodness for early generation technology theft.

I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker. I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess. My comments are aimed more at the
comment about "by 1980 it could not have worked".

While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands. An example is the modern IR countermeasures flare.
Lets say the MJU-49B.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/mju-49.htm

This flare is tailored to put most of its energy out in the threat
bands of interest. The page above claims 2 to 5 micrometers. This
encompasses both the near IR and the mid IR bands. Or, both uncooled
and cooled PbS detector systems. The response curves of PbS (and
other detector responses) can be found here:

http://www.electro-optical.com/bb_rad/detector.htm

Despite the fact that the MJU-49B is tailored, specifically made, to
emit most of its energy in the near and mid IR bands, a significant
portion of energy is still emitted in the visible portion of the
spectrum (shorter wavelengths). And, it is easier to tailor towards
the longer waves, than it is to do so towards the shorter waves, such
as the visible band. The band of emission is tied loosely to heat
energy, less energy, longer wavelengths. Or, less heat, longer
wavelengths.

Still, the point is that flares tailored to work in the IR spectrum
still, very often, possibly even always, emit in the visible spectrum
as well.

http://www.warforum.net/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&pid=61

So, my question is, why could photo-flash cartridges used by the USAF
in 1980 NOT have served as an stand-in IR countermeasures flare? Has
it something to do with the fashion of dispense? Do they not light
until well away from the aircraft? Or am I missing something more
obviouse here?

Token

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Token

Post by Token
I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker.

OK

Post by Token
I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess.

Not surprisingly, you're impression was common back then.

Post by Token
While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands.

I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.

The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.

We watched a couple AVTR clips showing various IRCM techiques against
AIM-9P and L seekers and some foreign made seekers. The tests by the
guys at TAWC concludeded the photo-flash didn't decoy any seekers. And
there were remarks like, "We'd really like to show you some more neat
stuff, but you guys don't have need to know."

Additionally RF-4s had specific IR flares manufactured for their cart
breeches, not simply photo-flash carts modified to bloom early and
burn longer. I know they worked against the AIM-9 from DACT with the
MS or AL ANG.

Post by Token
Still, the point is that flares tailored to work in the IR spectrum
still, very often, possibly even always, emit in the visible spectrum
as well.

No problem.

I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...

Juvat

[Les Matheson]

"Juvat" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com..

Yes the MC had/has some neat toys.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

Post by Juvat
I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...
Juvat

[Token]

Post by Juvat
I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.
The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.

I can totally buy that the eject profile is wrong, and that they get
out of the track beam of the seeker before they bloom. That is one of
the major design issues with IR counter measures flares, getting them
to heat up quick, without being explosive. However, IRCM flares are
JUST short of "explosive", they have a very rapid velocity factor. If
you have ever listened to them from outside the AC, say on the ground
under the AC, they make a very distinctive "pop" on ignition, a pop
that can be heard over a pair of engines in reheat.

I mean, if you go to this page:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm
You will see that the track "beam" of a period weapon, in this case
the SA-7b, is only 1.9 degrees wide. This is the instantaneous field
of view. That means that the flare would only have to move half this
value, or .95 degrees, to be out of the beam of the weapon (assuming
the weapon is tracking the aircraft). Lets figure a beam shot (yes, I
know, not with a 7b), at mid envelope range, say 2000 yards, 6000
feet. At that range 1 degree (17.5 mils) is about 105 feet. Lets
assume an aircraft speed of about 450 knots. That means the aircraft
is moving about 750 feet / sec. Or, the flare must come up to a high
enough energy state to mask the aircraft in less than 0.15 seconds, or
150 millisecond.

As far as the photo-flash flares having "not enough heat", I can see
someone saying that, in fact I have heard similar quotes from supposed
knowing individuals, but the physics just don't work that way. Less
heat means more shift to the red end. That is why something is
described as being "white hot". So, what it amounts to is, if it is a
pyrotechnic device (and these are) it will emit at least as much in
the IR as in the visible. Infra Red emissions happen at a lower energy
state then visible light emissions. So that even when it has burned
out, and is not issuing very much visible light, it will still be
emitting in the IR. This is a generalization, but a good one for
flares.

A high school physics example here. Take a DC light bulb, say a 12
volt car lamp. Turn down the voltage getting to the lamp, the lower
the voltage, the redder the lamp will glow. Eventually the lamp will
no longer put out visible light, but will still stay hot to the touch.
It is still putting out IR, but the energy state is lower, too low to
produce "white" light.

Post by Juvat
We watched a couple AVTR clips showing various IRCM techiques against
AIM-9P and L seekers and some foreign made seekers. The tests by the
guys at TAWC concludeded the photo-flash didn't decoy any seekers. And
there were remarks like, "We'd really like to show you some more neat
stuff, but you guys don't have need to know."
Additionally RF-4s had specific IR flares manufactured for their cart
breeches, not simply photo-flash carts modified to bloom early and
burn longer. I know they worked against the AIM-9 from DACT with the
MS or AL ANG.

Yes, IR flares are specifically designed, not an adaptation of other
types of flares. The point of what I am saying is that photo-flash
flares will have some signature in the proper IR bands, but without a
doubt, it could be made better.

Post by Juvat
I had an interesting LOWAT sortie were I tapped an MC-130. I had
gotten a satisfactory weapons check after takeoff (my Lima's seeker
tracked my wingman's exhaust). I managed to trap the MC-130 at my 12
o'clock thru superior airmanship and cunning (okay a single side
offset intercept). When I uncaged the seeker head it literally started
nutating in ever increasing circles and sailed way off the Herc. No
"visible" flares were noted (none on my AVTR), but that Lima just
couldn't lock-on to the Herc's engines. My wingman had the same
experience, and we could track and uncage the seeker against each
other after the Herc engagement. Magic...
Juvat

lol...magic...magic with some kind of ALQ designator ;-) And that is
old tech, you should see some kind of DIRCM at work.

Token

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Token

Post by Token
However, IRCM flares are
JUST short of "explosive", they have a very rapid velocity factor. If
you have ever listened to them from outside the AC, say on the ground
under the AC, they make a very distinctive "pop" on ignition, a pop
that can be heard over a pair of engines in reheat.

Hehe...standing on the ramp I've heard the carts fire whilst
jettisoning a CL tank off a Phantom from over a mile away.

Sincere thanks for the link.

Post by Token
As far as the photo-flash flares having "not enough heat", I can see
someone saying that, in fact I have heard similar quotes from supposed
knowing individuals, but the physics just don't work that way.

Oops, my poor choice of words. The video we watched clearly showed
foreign (as in those from the SA-7 and an early version of the Atoll)
seekers NOT tracking a photo-flash cart either singles or pairs. I
took them at their word. Another test showed AIM-9 Lima versus Papa
flare rejection abilities in relatively clear air mass, at high
aspect. Way out at 10 miles a Papa would bite off on an IR flare.

Post by Token
Yes, IR flares are specifically designed, not an adaptation of other
types of flares. The point of what I am saying is that photo-flash
flares will have some signature in the proper IR bands, but without a
doubt, it could be made better.

Fair enough, I am unable to dispute your logic. I love physics, but
don't have the memory (or notes) to get very deep in the topic. But
please feel free to expound...I always like learning.

Post by Token
lol...magic...magic with some kind of ALQ designator ;-) And that is
old tech, you should see some kind of DIRCM at work.

Indeed, I'm long removed from a fighter cockpit to venture a WAG.

Juvat

[Tom Cooper]

Post by Juvat
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Token

Post by Token
I can not comment on the story of photo-flash carts being used to
defeat any seeker.

OK

Post by Token
I imagine it would work, I see no reason it should
not, but as I am not familiar with the burn times or dispense patterns
of the cartridges I can only guess.

Not surprisingly, you're impression was common back then.

Post by Token
While I can see that photo-flash stuff would be tailored to emit the
most energy in the optical band of interest, it is very hard, some
would say impossible, to design such a device that did not also emit
in unwanted bands.

I just flipped thru my notes from a 1984 course at TAWC, and can't
find the reference. I only got to keep some of them. The course had
guys from every tactical jet in USAFE, TAC, and PACAF. The question
was raised about the effectiveness of photo-flash carts versus IR
missiles during an IRCM lecture.
The short answer was they're ineffective due to the lack of sufficient
coverage of the IR spectrum (not enough heat), plus they're ejected
above and to the side before "blooming" which probably puts them
outside the seeker's centroid (depending on the missile's range from
the RF-4). But not a problem with A-10s' flare dispensers out near the
wingtip.

Juvat,
I understand your points and the reasoning behind it. My question is only:
why would the crew of the RF-4E in question then explain such a story?

After all, they said they used these cartriges to decoy the missiles, and
evaded four R-3/R-13s fired by the MiG in question, and also the Soviet
pilot rammed them in desperation. OK, the Atolls were not that problematic
to evade, but an RF-4E at supersonic speed is also not that maneuvreable
either.

Do you have any idea what kind of cartriges were used at earlier times?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Juvat]

Post by Tom Cooper
why would the crew of the RF-4E in question then explain such a story?

Short answer...it would appear that since all Atolls missed, the
efficacy of photo-flash carts as IRCM was proven, at least
anecdotally. But wait...

What is missing from the story, are significant details like, time of
day (chased into the sun?), altitude of the fight, cloud cover (bright
white puffy ones)...even in the 80's the AIM-9 Papa was decoyed by
bright clouds.

Post by Tom Cooper
After all, they said they used these cartriges to decoy the missiles, and
evaded four R-3/R-13s fired by the MiG in question, and also the Soviet
pilot rammed them in desperation.

Okay, here's a skeptical guess, merely throwing it out. What if the
MiG pilot was hosing off missiles from Max range in an clever attempt
to make the Phantom pilot turn, allowing the MiG to get closer (maybe
for a gun kill, not trusting the Atolls). BS? As the guy in the front
seat of the Phantom you would rely upon the WSO to tell you the MiG
fired a missile and which direction to break (assumes I can't see him,
i.e. he's in my vulnerable cone)

Post by Tom Cooper
OK, the Atolls were not that problematic to evade, but an
RF-4E at supersonic speed is also not that maneuvreable either.

Indeed a big ass turn circle, which would give credence to the Max
range Atoll shot. Call me a skeptical asshole for thinking there is no
way in hell a Phantom is going to cruise Supersonic in Mil Power.

So from my perspective the supersonic RF-4 must be in Burner/Reheat/AB
and just think how much heat (IR energy) is thrown off by the exhaust
and the nozzles versus a few photo-flash carts. Based upon the TAWC
lectures and videos, I think it is unlikely photo-flash carts worked
as IR decoys under these circumstances.

As an aside, the mantra for using flares as IRCM included "ya gotta be
out of burner, and ya gotta maneuver the jet." So, here' what I'd toss
out. You've got an RF-4 going supersonic in Max AB, the WSO calls the
Atoll shots and tells the pilot to Break L/R, forcing the pilot to
Idle, Speedbrakes, and put 7.33 Gs on (and oh yeah watch out for Mach
Tuck as you slow down). Now the jet is subsonic and the fight stays
that way until they get speared by the MiG guy...AND perhaps the
mid-air was accidental.

Or you got this RF-4 going supersonic in Max AB and the pilot is smart
enough to try and keep the MiG(s) at the edge of the vulnerable cone
(out near the wingtip in terms of relative position seen from the FCP)
and out of Atoll parameters. These check-turns and extensions alter
direction, Left/Right in an attempt to keep going in the right
direction...Iran.

Tom this truly is an interesting story with so many missing variables
to ponder.

Post by Tom Cooper
Do you have any idea what kind of cartriges were used at earlier times?

The reason that jumps out at me was the common belief that photo-flash
carts worked. There was no test data to support that belief, but what
the heck...photo-flash produce lots of light (energy) so they probably
will work as a decoy. I find absolutley nothing wrong with the logic
of that thinking (considering the infancy of IRCM).

Juvat

[Juvat]

Post by Tom Cooper
After all, they said they used these cartriges to decoy the missiles, and
evaded four R-3/R-13s fired by the MiG in question, and also the Soviet
pilot rammed them in desperation. OK, the Atolls were not that problematic
to evade, but an RF-4E at supersonic speed is also not that maneuvreable
either.

Just to recap from the earlier reply of mine:

"What is missing from the story, are significant details like, time of
day (chased into the sun?), altitude of the fight, cloud cover (bright
white puffy ones)...even in the 80's the AIM-9 Papa was decoyed by
bright clouds."

Taking that last phrase a bit further, this was for a Mil Power
target.

So perhaps the MiG was shooting first generation Atolls. Recalling
that they were noted for poor target/IR source discrimination, perhaps
the photo-flash did decoy the missiles. But I'd still speculate that
the RF-4 would not have been in AB for it to work.

Just to connect the dots of my train of thought...
Early generation Atoll with zero IRCCM and poor IR discrimination,
could get decoyed by lots of things (sun, bright clouds, warm surface
background)...possibly/probably photo-flash.

Ten years later leaps and bounds in seeker technology and IRCCM on
both sides of the Cold War. At that point in time photo-flash carts
were determined to be ineffective versus current IR missiles.

Works for me, just because they (photo-flash carts) didn't work in the
early 80's doesn't prove they NEVER worked as IRCM.

Les?...Ed?...Guy? Make sense to y'all?

Tom, does the USAF WSO which to remain anonymous? If so why?

Juvat

[Ed Rasimus]

Post by Juvat

Post by Tom Cooper
After all, they said they used these cartriges to decoy the missiles, and
evaded four R-3/R-13s fired by the MiG in question, and also the Soviet
pilot rammed them in desperation. OK, the Atolls were not that problematic
to evade, but an RF-4E at supersonic speed is also not that maneuvreable
either.

Anyone who is doing recce work who allows themselves to get rammed has
clearly slowed down too much and did way too much turning.

I doubt that RF was super. Even so, he should have had great
maneuvering potential. Kinetic translates to potential energy very
quickly.

Post by Juvat
"What is missing from the story, are significant details like, time of
day (chased into the sun?), altitude of the fight, cloud cover (bright
white puffy ones)...even in the 80's the AIM-9 Papa was decoyed by
bright clouds."
Taking that last phrase a bit further, this was for a Mil Power
target.
So perhaps the MiG was shooting first generation Atolls. Recalling
that they were noted for poor target/IR source discrimination, perhaps
the photo-flash did decoy the missiles. But I'd still speculate that
the RF-4 would not have been in AB for it to work.
Just to connect the dots of my train of thought...
Early generation Atoll with zero IRCCM and poor IR discrimination,
could get decoyed by lots of things (sun, bright clouds, warm surface
background)...possibly/probably photo-flash.
Ten years later leaps and bounds in seeker technology and IRCCM on
both sides of the Cold War. At that point in time photo-flash carts
were determined to be ineffective versus current IR missiles.
Works for me, just because they (photo-flash carts) didn't work in the
early 80's doesn't prove they NEVER worked as IRCM.
Les?...Ed?...Guy? Make sense to y'all?

My impression is that if the recce were in AB and then choose to honor
the shot by turning into it (and without the sophistication of knowing
to come out of burner and get quiet) then remember that the heat plume
is on the lag side of the turn.

Back in the days before the invention of fire when I was doing this
sort of thing, the best IR shot was taken by maneuvering to lag--not
cutting off inside the turn circle but lag rolling to outside the
target's flight path giving you a clear look up the pipes rather than
at the top of the wing.

Then, assuming that the RF-4E still had the cart doors at about the
same place, look for the turning recce to be firing photo-carts left
and right of flight path, but inside the turn circle.

If the MiG is trying to lead pursue and cut off (a natural thing to do
in a low-wing-loaded, high-G capable aircraft) then he's not getting a
good lag shot at the AB plume and he is closer to solution with the
photo carts. Sounds to me like a good transfer of the missile seeker
situation.

It's sure more fun to figure these things out at the PC with a cup of
coffee than twisted around in the seat at seven G and wishing you
could get two more.

[Tom Cooper]

I had to dig deep into my files to find the most important things out, and
here it is.

The RF-4Es delivered to Iran and used for these flights were partially
"white tails" (or so-called "UKIs" = Unknown Iranians), and partially the
first six examples officially sold to the IIAF, namely the 72-0266 thru
72-0269 (which are strange FY-numbers, given that the first IIAF RF-4Es
arrived in Iran already in March 1971, replacing two USAF RF-4Cs that were
used for this task already since 1970). The project apparently run under the
code-name "Dark Genie" or "Dark Gene".

The first examples supplied lacked the ALQ-126, but this was mounted later.
What they have got nevertheless (and this already in 1971) was the AAS-118
IR-linescaner set, the ALR-69(V) RWR, and the ALR-17, plus a (still)
clasiffied HF radio transceiver (with secure voice communications), and then
the AN/ALQ-71, 72, and 87(V)4 ECM-pods. Later also the AN/ALQ-125 tac
electronic recce system was added, plus the ALQ-101(V)-10 and ALQ-119(V)-10
ECM-pods. One of the planes had its underside painted black (last noticed in
1986): I don't know why.

Re. the case of 28 November 1973: the plane was flown by Maj. Shokhounia
(executed by the Islamic regime in 1980), and the USAF officer known to me
only as Col. Saunders.

Although he later said he was not sure if these have indeed decoyed the AAMs
fired at them, Saudners fired all the 54 flash cartriges (27 were carried in
two ejector racks, one each on one side of the aircraft), that were aboard
and commented, "it looked like we were flying just ahead of the sun."

The MiG finally approached from the left bellow and hit the rear part of the
Phantom, somewhere in the area of the engine noozles, disintegrating in the
process and killing the pilot. The RF-4E fell into a nose dive, the crew
ejected and the plane hit the ground at supersonic speed, being completely
destroyed on the impact (one reason more why the Russians became pretty mad:
they could not recover anything from the "wreckage").

I have no additional data, especially not if this happened by day or night,
but my guess is that the weather was clear (it is usually in that part of
Iran and Turkmenistan), but if this is indeed such an interesting topic as
it seems I could try to get more (besides, this would certainly result in an
interesting article for some airspace mag.). One thing is sure: I'm
currently working on a book about the F-14s in Iranian service, and - while
this was not easy to prepare by any means - it costed my co-workers and me
far more efforts to learn even so little about the Iranian RF-4Es and that
mission than the whole story about the Tomcats (which includes dozens of
narratives about air combats in which the type participated).

Obviously, for reasons that are completely unclear to us, most of the
involved still consider these operations as _very_ sensitive...

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[José Herculano]

Post by Ed Rasimus
No flares on F-4s in SEA. (Photo-flash carts on RF-4s only). No
self-protection chaff carts either. We carried cardboard boxes (about
the size of a box of Xmas tree tinsel) in the speedbrake wells. Open
the boards to deploy. Try not to use speed brakes earlier in the
mission. One time use.

I believe that is correct for Air Force F-4s only, Ed. Navy Phantoms had
internal chaff/flare carriage (mid fuselage, both sides, close to the RAT).
_____________
José Herculano

[Bob Martin]

Post by José Herculano
I believe that is correct for Air Force F-4s only, Ed. Navy Phantoms had
internal chaff/flare carriage (mid fuselage, both sides, close to the RAT).

How many of each?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Ed Rasimus
ALE-40 dispensers were added to F-4Es around '74-'75. We never got
them on C models in USAFE at all.

I saw chaff dispensers at RAF Lakenheath in '76-'77', never saw them mounted
on an F-4D though. I don't know how old they were, but they were pretty
well beat up.

[Chad Irby]

Post by Bob Martin
Anyone have data on typical chaff/flare loads for F-4's, both in Vietnam and
modern day? Thanks

In the 1980s, they used to load half and half on the dispensers. Since
the flare loads were larger, it ended up as a 2:1 margin chaff/flare.