Found these loadout charts for Phantoms during Desert Storm

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2482
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post02 Oct 2020, 14:24

Salute!

Good points, Finn.

One thing about the newer seekers was more discrimination as to the IR frequency they were tuned for to minimize being decoyed. So older might be better.

The old 'winders would lock on to anything giving off heat! I was surprised we didn't have a few fired up North during the war.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Oct 2020, 18:39

eloise wrote:
Gums wrote:For trivial pursuit answers, the F-102 detachment from Clark used a few AIM-4D heaters against VeeCee campfires. The IRSTS was decent, and if a FAC had good coordinates, then locking on to the camp fire was easy. The arrival of the Falcon missile gave new meaning to "fried rice".

That unique way an air to air weapon could be used.
Do you know if AIM-7 or AIM-120 could be used in similar way?


Hopefully, the Falcon's hit rate vs. campfires was better than its air to air record, LOL

Related, I can't imagine an aircraft more poorly suited to the Vietnam conflict than the 102. Hell even the F-104 was better suited to battling Mig's...God only knows why they sent it over there, as the results were predictable. I've heard stories the F-111's debut was an even bigger debacle, but at least it was designed for the mission.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2482
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post02 Oct 2020, 22:46

Salute!

A point or two....

Hopefully, the Falcon's hit rate vs. campfires was better than its air to air record, LOL.


Actually, the Aim-4 wasn't all that bad after launch. I personally know one or two folks from that era that got Mig kills or tried to get the damned thing prepped and launched. As with most systems from the 50's and until the early 80's, the missiles or other things required dedicated boxes and mods to the plane. We had no "standard" interfaces - physical, electrical or logical. Mil_STD-1760 and the corresponding NATO STANAG helped immensely. My company was instrumental in development of those standards and I was allowed to participate in a few of the SAE AE-9 cmte meetings when involved with the A-12 and other systems 1985 - 1987.

The AIM-9 was part of the Hughes system in the Deuce, Voodoo and Six. The plane system did most of the work, so switchology was easy. Not so for the Double Ugly. You had to manually cool the seeker and then manually slave it to the radar. No feedback or "tone" if the seeker acquired the tgt. With no lock-on, no guided launch. 'winder was a piece of cake.

Related, I can't imagine an aircraft more poorly suited to the Vietnam conflict than the 102. Hell even the F-104 was better suited to battling Mig's...God only knows why they sent it over there, as the results were predictable. I've heard stories the F-111's debut was an even bigger debacle, but at least it was designed for the mission.


Roles and missions, Mixel. The PTB in the Pentagon had a detachhment from Clark at Bien Hoa ( where I met them) and DaNang, and I think in Thailand for a little while. With a gun, the thing would have been a good match for the Mig-17 due to its fantastic nose-pointing ability. I flew it down below 100 knots a few times when rat racing and had no problems except I was losing 10,000 feet per minute.

The Deuce and even the F-4 were not meant to hassle close in. Ditto for the Zipper. The best man at my wedding flew the thing in 'nam and it would have been a "boom and zoom" platform. It had no BVR capability ( ditto for the early Vipers where we hooked up again and flew in the 16th). It couldn't turn nearly as well as the Mig-21 or 17. The F-8 was prolly better, although a friend of mine got a kill in the Thud using the gun, and that plane was not a great A2A legend despite getting many gun kills.

The 'vaark was there when I was in the other combat test unit - Combat Lancer, I think. I was in Combat Dragon for the A-37. The 111 losses were due to mechanical designs of the stab, and not the terrain following tactic. When they came back in '72 they did really well.

Oh well, plenty of memories, mostly good ones, even after losing a few dozen friends.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

henshao

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 01:24

Unread post13 Dec 2020, 04:45

eloise wrote:
Gums wrote:For trivial pursuit answers, the F-102 detachment from Clark used a few AIM-4D heaters against VeeCee campfires. The IRSTS was decent, and if a FAC had good coordinates, then locking on to the camp fire was easy. The arrival of the Falcon missile gave new meaning to "fried rice".

That unique way an air to air weapon could be used.
Do you know if AIM-7 or AIM-120 could be used in similar way?



hornetfinn wrote:AIM-9X definitely can:
https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1462

"With a software upgrade, AIM-9X retains its air-to-air capabilities and gains an air-to-surface capability," said Harry Schulte, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president of Air Warfare Systems. "AIM-9X now has the potential to take on an additional mission at a very affordable cost."

The test marks the third time an AIM-9X engaged moving surface targets. In April 2008, a U.S. Air Force F-16 launched an AIM-9X and sank a maneuvering boat, and in March 2007, a U.S. Air Force F-15C fired an AIM-9X and destroyed a fast-moving armored personnel carrier.


I actually think older IR seeking missiles without imaging seekers would work directly as they aren't as smart. They will go right after any heat source that they can lock onto. Imaging seekers might reject targets that don't look like aircraft or helicopter.

Not sure about radar-guided weapons but I think there might be similar pattern. AMRAAM might require software changes to work reliably against ground targets. AIM-7 likely goes after anything the fighter radar illuminates. They might work against soft and relatively big ground targets like SAM systems and TBM TELs.



it would be an interesting experiment to use the Sparrow against ground targets but as I understand it even from the very early models they had a doppler filter. is it my imagination or was the AGM-45 developed from the AIM-7? I wonder if an alternate guidance mode was ever envisioned for it
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2482
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post13 Dec 2020, 05:56

Salute!

Interesting to see such a question here at end of the thread.

I never flew with the Sparrow, but I had to integrate the thing on the new fighter/attack planes in the 90's.

I was not concerned with the launch zone or detection range or..... I was concerned with the signal interface, and besides AC/DC volts, it required a doppler signal of some sort that they called "tuning" before you launched the sucker. The Vipers I flew did not have the radar "tuning" doofer for the Sparrow, and many folks used that to promote the Eagle and others because we lowly Vipers did not have a BVR capability.

Best I can tell from the missile specks is the only missile that could be used for A2G would be the IR types like the 'winder and Falcon. During the Viet era some F-102 folks actually fired some AIM-4 missiles at Vee camp fires.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Previous

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests