deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (02/05/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From: clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) > >Can someone fill in the blank in the following sentences? > >(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." > I'm not so sure about this one, but I assume that the F-4 is maintained in the Wild Weasel role for a couple of reasons: 1) They're still effective aircraft, not yet ready for retirement. Since they don't have the task-efficiency of the F-14 or F/A-18, they might as well be used in a capacity which fits their capabilities. 2) The EW pods were designs for mounting on an F-4; with all of the subtleties of aircraft design (especially with respect to weight distribution and drag coefficients), it's probably easier to keep them in their present role rather than try to modify newer aircraft for the mission. Besides, the contractors probably have some kind of production agreement.... >(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) > It would NOT. Part of the mission of the Wild Weasel is to make the enemy aware of its presence, getting the SAM to light up the acquisition radars, then send in HARMs to kill the site. With a low-observable platform like the F-117a, you'd have to send out a radar signal yourself to get the SAM's ESM detectors going -- but then you'd be vulnerable to the same type of missiles you're sending to the SAM site. Also, I believe Wild Weasels rely on jamming pods (which also give off a sizable electromagnetic signal), so a Stealth fighter would be revealing its position to more people than necessary.... There's also the topic of "cost effectiveness," too.... > >Thanks, >pc You're welcome. Hope this helps (and that I won't get flamed too badly by the AF guys! :-) -shane
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (02/05/91)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) >Can someone fill in the blank in the following sentences? >(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." Because it's not exactly a state-of-the-art fighter anymore, but there's still a dance left in the old girl -- same reason the F-4 is also used for tac recon. It can also carry quite a lot by fighter standards, and, as the original poster pointed out, has a backseater to twiddle the knobs. The USAF, like everybody else, does what it can with what it's got. >(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) Nah. See above. It has a pretty small payload, and besides, talk about an expensive and scarce asset to send on a high-risk mission! I also doubt that we've yet come up with a radar-suppression missile designed for "low observables" so that it wouldn't compromise the Stealth's stealthiness. And remember that the F-117A is not INVISIBLE to radar -- just extremely low in cross section at strategically selected wavelength ranges and angles. All in all, there are better things to do with it than go trolling. --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (02/05/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1991Feb4.072034.23521@cbnews.att.com>, clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) writes... >From: clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) > >Can someone fill in the blank in the following sentences? > >(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." It's size is needed to carry analysis and detection equipment. It has 52 ariels for receiving enemy electronic emissions. > >(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) It's relatively small. Also, I'm sure it would have to have antenna sticking out of receive the signals, which would mess up it's stealthiness. Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
aroe@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Bongo) (02/05/91)
From: Bongo <aroe@jarthur.Claremont.edu> In article <1991Feb4.072034.23521@cbnews.att.com> clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) writes: >Can someone fill in the blank in the following sentences? > >(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." The Wild Weasel Concept was originally designed for use in conjunction with the EF-4 airframe. The frame's design is closely coordinated with the design and needs of the equipment used for the Wild Weasel mission. Adaptation to another airframe would a) produce many problems and bugs that need to be overcome and b) be less economical than producing a new system for another plane from scratch. Adapting W/W for another plane is like trying to put a Phoenix on an F-15 (need new radar, electronics, etc) or the A-10's 30mm cannon on an F-16 (OUCH!). >(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) Would not. First, the F-117 is far too expensive for this type of mission, playing chicken with a SAM is not for the stealth fighter. Second, many of the missiles like the HARM requires that the enemy radar illuminate the plane, and give away its location. If the enemy doesn't know that we're there (as is the case with the F-117), they won't activate their radars, and then you can't home in on it. >(3) (If answer to #2 is "would", then: > "USAF doesn't use the F-117 for the Wild Weasel mission > because _________________________." See above. >An ignorant person's wild guesses (mine) would be: >(1) "Beats me. All I can think of is (a) two engines are better than one > if your primary goal is to get shot at; and (b) this is a 2-person > job. Those two criteria point either to the F-4 or the F-15E. And > (c) Every other job the F-4 might do is currently filled." More like using a cheaper planes is better if your primary goal is to get shot at. >Thanks, >pc ------ Andrew Roe aroe@jarthur.claremont.edu
ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) (02/05/91)
From: ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) Just some educated guesses: > > From: clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) > > Can someone fill in the blank in the following sentences? > > (1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." (1) They are pretty high performance but getting old and expendable. ^^^^^^^^^^ (2) They will carry lots of missiles, and have space for an equipment operator so the pilot's loading is tolerable. (3) Their reliability and problems are well-known quantities. One wouldn't want to be flight testing one's aircraft in front of multiple SAMS..... > > (2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) (1) Because it can't tempt radars that can't see it. (WW missions are mainly SAM suppression by shooting the radars) (2) It's too expensive to use as a decoy (3) We might lose one! Sheesh! Historical note: The Navy's original "Iron Hand" mission was like the Wild Weasel of the Air Force except that they first used the A-1( if I recall this correctly). According to Nichols (NAVAL AIR WAR in VN; US Naval Institute Press) there was no way to train for this so the new guys were given an overwater orbit to work from so that if he got "bagged" he had a safe bailout. Now THAT'S OJT!!! (On the Job Training) Ron
boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au (Boyd Roberts) (02/06/91)
From: Boyd Roberts <boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au> clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) writes: > >Can someone fill in the blank in the following sentences? > ... > "USAF doesn't use the F-117 for the Wild Weasel mission > because _________________________." > Sounds a bit silly to me to go to all that trouble to get stealth and then prowl around the sky with ECM blaring. Bit of a contradiction in terms really. Not a very appropriate role for stealth. Given that the weapons are carried in an internal bay it unlikely that ECM pods could be fitted to the airframe. And they certainly wouldn't work _inside_ the weapons bay. Boyd Roberts boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au ``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (02/06/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) From: clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) >(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." Because the F-105s are all retired? The F-4 fills the roll, and it is currently not cost-effective to replace the F-4s. The desired quality of a Wild Weasel plane is that it should be a hot fighter, be able to carry a wide variety of arms, be able to absorb moderate amounts of damage, and have at least two crew positions. More fatalistly, Wild Weasels might experience higher than average losses, and the F-4 is the least costly plane that fits the roll. >(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) The F-117 carries only 2 2000lb laser guided bombs. These are not good Wild Weasel weapons. You would want a radar seeking missile of some type. The other reason is that stealth is actually a problem in the Wild Weasel. You want to get attention to make the enemy turn on its radar so you know where to strike. With the F-117, the enemy would not be able to play its end of the game because they would never know that the F-117 was in the area. >(3) (If answer to #2 is "would", then: > "USAF doesn't use the F-117 for the Wild Weasel mission > because _________________________." The F-117 is quite expensive because of its primary roll, stealthieness. You want to use the plane where it has the highest return on investment. The F-117 is very good at taking out high value targets in heavily defended areas. No other plane can do this as well. So, the F-117 are busy doing this job. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (02/06/91)
From: eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
In article <1991Feb5.044941.7360@cbnews.att.com> ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) writes:
One additional reason for using an F-4 as a Wild Weasel platform:
acceleration. Since the goal of the Wild Weasel is to 1) get an enemy
missile fired AT you, 2) fire a HARM at the radar guiding the missile,
3) stay a live target until the HARM reaches the radar (afterward, as
well, but once the radar is out, it's not such an iffy thing). So you
amble in toward a protected target and eventually the radar lights up
and you get a missile launch warning...time to light off the HARM,
turn around, and GET THE FUCK OUTTA THERE, jinking on the way.
The limit on turning radius is the crew tolerance for G forces,
but the limit on thrust change is spoolup time (long) or the amount of
afterburner available (NOW). As I have mentioned before, the F-4 has
(two) humongous afterburners that can get you from cruise to Mach 2 in
a few seconds. (And use up your fuel in a few minutes, but that's not
the problem here.)
The F-14 might not be bad in the Wild Weasel role, but the F-4
seems to have been designed for it. Planes like the F-16 and F-18 get
high-speed performance by using a very low drag airframe...the F-4 has
often been described as a proof that a barn door can be made to fly
given a big enough engine--then they stuffed a second engine in. Since
the engines are working fairly hard at cruise, kicking in the burners
can give you a really big kick in the seat. As one pilot described it
to me: "the damn thing accelerates more as it goes faster...you've got
another guy sitting on your chest every few seconds until around
{Mach} 1.8 one of them finally gets off." The engines actually are
losing power--as more air gets rammed in the front, the engines have
to spin faster to generate the same amount of power, and the plane is
accelerating about as fast as the engines can spool, but the
afterburners more than make up for it--more, and colder, air is more
thrust as long as you have fuel to mix with it.
I think I remember it as under 10 seconds from Mach 0.9 to Mach
2.0, and the engines RPMs still increasing as he got there.
--
Robert I. Eachus
Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire
world. And they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind
their back. President George Bush, January 16, 1991sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.044528.7098@cbnews.att.com>, deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) writes: > >>(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a >> good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) >> > >It would NOT. Part of the mission of the Wild Weasel is to make >the enemy aware of its presence, getting the SAM to light up the >acquisition radars, then send in HARMs to kill the site. With a >low-observable platform like the F-117a, you'd have to send out a >radar signal yourself to get the SAM's ESM detectors going You don't have to. Have someone launch in a couple of RPVs or target drones with big fat radar signatures and you find yourself in happy-land. >-- but >then you'd be vulnerable to the same type of missiles you're sending >to the SAM site. Also, I believe Wild Weasels rely on jamming pods >(which also give off a sizable electromagnetic signal), so a Stealth >fighter would be revealing its position to more people than necessary.... You don't need to jam with stealth. You just play invisible (electronically). HARM needs a radar to dive on, but is *not* a radar emitter. >There's also the topic of "cost effectiveness," too.... Huh? The F-117 is about $63 million a pop. Not a bad price for a one-of-a-kind airplane. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan for DECUS president * SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU
scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (02/07/91)
From: scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) writes: |> Historical note: The Navy's original "Iron Hand" mission was like the |> Wild Weasel of the Air Force except that they first used the A-1( if |> I recall this correctly). I would also take this opportunity to recommend Flight of the Intruder if you wish to see the early days of the "Iron Hand" role. There they fly the A-6B fitted with Shrike missiles. In the book they also use the larger "Standard ARM". Both of these were somewhat "dumb" missiles and required some amount of tweaking right before launch. Today we have the HARM wich is a semi-intelligent, highly flexible anti-radiation missile. It sees most radar emissions and either remembers the target location if it shuts down, or picks new targets if they are somewhere in front of the missile. The F-18 typically carries HARM missiles to support attacking bombers. I believe they go in in a wave, launching the missiles ahead of the bombers. Some of the early CNN footage of the war showed F-18's laden with HARMS. Also, I believe there is a new, super advanced anti-radiation missile being developed right now. Does anyone know if this is correct, or am I confusing this with another program somewhere? /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Scott Silvey | DOD Spokesman Pete Williams on Cruise Missiles: | | scott@xcf.berkeley.edu | "We just don't discuss that capability. I can't | | | tell you why we don't discuss it because then I'd | | Flames to /dev/null | be discussing it." | \-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller) (02/09/91)
From: pur-ee!muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller) In article <1991Feb4.072034.23521@cbnews.att.com> clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) writes: > >(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." When the F-4G came into service as the new wild weasel in the late 1970's, it had the advantage of being available, and having a rear seat. At this time, F-16's were a brand new, and the F-15's were too valuable (and expensive) in the air superiority role to use as wild weasels >(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) Would not, for the following reasons: 1) It doesn't show up on radar. The idea of the wild weasel is to bait the SAM operators to turn on their radars', so that the weasel can fire a HARM (High speed, Anti-Radiation Missile) at them to take them out. If the plane was stealthy, then the SAMs' would not turn on their firing radars, because they wouldn't know there was a target. 2) It is too small. It would probably be very difficult, if not impossible to fit on / carry all of the electronics gear and missiles that an F-4G currently does. 3) It doesn't have a backseat. There are a lot of complicated electronics on a wild weasel to operate, probably too many for one person. It also is unlikeely that it could be given a backseat while remeaing stealthy without spending a lot of money. >(3) (If answer to #2 is "would", then: > "USAF doesn't use the F-117 for the Wild Weasel mission > because _________________________." > >An ignorant person's wild guesses (mine) would be: >(1) "Beats me. All I can think of is (a) two engines are better than one > if your primary goal is to get shot at; and (b) this is a 2-person > job. Those two criteria point either to the F-4 or the F-15E. And > (c) Every other job the F-4 might do is currently filled." The F-117 has two engines, BTW. They are GE F404's without the afterburners (the F/A-18 uses F404's, and the recently cancelled A-12 was to use a derivative of the F404. The Swedish SAAB Gripen is to use a licensed built version of the F404, and the late F-20 used one as well) The F-15E will possibly get the job some time in the future, but, for now the F-5G's are doing it quite well. >(2) "would, and how!" The F-117's are good at hitting known SAM sites, and have probably done quite a bit of it in the current war. >(3) "there aren't enough of them to go around" This will be true for the plane for its entire career, as they are too expensive to buy in mass when you consider how little they carry. They are a useful compliment for the AF's other A/C, but they aren't able to actually replace anything *-------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark Muller Undergraduate at Purdue University * * muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu Aeronautics & Astronautics Engineering * *-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) (02/09/91)
From: tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) |>From: clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) |> |>(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the |> Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF |> inventory, because _____________________." |> The F-4G Wild Weasel was fielded in 1976 as a replacement for F-4C Wild Weasels in use in Vietnam. At the time, the decision made good engineering sense for lots of reasons: a) Easy transition for pilots - same airframe. b) Few alternatives in the inventory. F-15's were just coming in. F-16's not yet available. F-111 too scarce, most allocatd to SAC. Some personal observations: It is not so much the airframe that makes a modern fighter/bomber good at the wild weasel mission. It is the avionics. To make an F-4G you start with an F-4E (cost about $5M) and add about $30M worth of electronics. Stuff in about 40 new antennas to begin with. Then add the AN/APR-38 computer with back seat displays, etc. |>(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a |> good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) Would not! The wild weasel must be able to "tease" ground based radars into transmitting. This provides a signal for weapons like HARM to lock on to. The F-117 makes a living by being invisible. Another major problem with the F-117 is that all of its weapons are carried internally. This won't work with any of the wild weasel weapons (HARM, Shrike, Maverick). If the next wild weasel does happen, the USAF is proposing an F-15G. Funding is not likely to occur. The Air Force will not be able to afford very many airplanes for "Dedicated Missions" like defense suppression in the future. They will have to take more of a USN approach - put HARM on every conceivable attack aircraft (A-7E, A-6E, F/A-18, EA-6B, F-14?) with simplified avionics and let defense suppression be done by all.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (02/12/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Feb9.034717.5511@cbnews.att.com>, tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) writes: >|>(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a >|> good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) > > Would not! The wild weasel must be able to "tease" ground >based radars into transmitting. This provides a signal for weapons like HARM >to lock on to. You can just as easily tease ground-based radars into activity with the non-stealthy aircraft in your strike "package." Or, alternately, use cruise missiles or RPVs (a la Bekka Valley in '82) to get the emitters to emit. >The F-117 makes a living by being invisible. Another major >problem with the F-117 is that all of its weapons are carried internally. >This won't work with any of the wild weasel weapons (HARM, Shrike, Maverick). Doesn't matter. As a previous poster noted, HARM can be launched on a "target of opportunity" mode or a "briefed" mode, neither of which would require external carriage. You could easily fit in a Maverick or two into the bomb bays of the F-117; Maverick can be fitted with a laser tracker. I personally prefer the 2000lbs bomb approach. Even if you don't get a direct hit, you will get their attention :-) > If the next wild weasel does happen, the USAF is proposing an F-15G. >Funding is not likely to occur. The Air Force will not be able to afford >very many airplanes for "Dedicated Missions" like defense suppression in >the future. They got money for the F-117 in the first place. Money will be found if the mission is important enough. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan for DECUS president * SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU