zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214 
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Sept 15, 2020 14:03:47 GMT 9
I was reading a book called Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972, by Marshall L. Michel III.
In his book there was discussion of issues with missile reliability. From what it appears, the problems had to do with...
1. Transportation of missiles from the US to overseas bases
2. Conditions missiles were maintained
3. Vehicles used to transport missiles weren't always fitted with shock-absorbers
4. Supposedly, some test facilities weren't always on base
I figure missile reliability was better in the states than abroad, but we have some areas where the climate is hot, humid, and salty (coasts), and I'm curious if that was ever noted to be an issue prior to Vietnam?
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 15, 2020 23:18:05 GMT 9
As you probably know the F-106 was designed in late 40's and built in the mid 50's. The state of the art electronics of the time were sub-miniature electronics tubes with filaments. No modern solid state components. So both reliability and capability of missile and MA-1/ AN/ASQ25 were suspect when working perfectly. We had to have "Quick-fix" spots for pilots to get their MA-1/An-ASQ25 working prior to and after flights. Many of our fixes were to simply reseat the electron cards in computer black boxes. We had about 200 plug in replaceable electronic "boxes". We used worm gears to secure the boxes in racks. The Falcon missiles used on F-106 were also used on early F-4 Aircraft used in VN. F-4's later went with sidewinder IR missiles in place of Falcon 4's.
Ever heard of PK? That's Probability of Kill. It's a value based upon using a particular missile in Air-to-Air combat. The Falcons had about an 80% PK factor. On F-106 in order to increase that PK they fired missiles in pairs. So 2 missiles with 80% PK produce a 90% PK.
The sidewinder had a higher PK because they were newer designs and manufacture.
Another question is why did F-106 add a gun to inventory? Better results in combat. The early F-4 used a gun pod to do the same.
Modern aircraft use missiles designed for long range launch with modern electronics components. They have very high PK, not like early fighters.
We used to have an expression when asked why MA-1/AN-ASQ25 was so unreliable in early years. Answer, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken chit.
Lorin
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 16, 2020 4:03:17 GMT 9
As you probably know the F-106 was designed in late 40's and built in the mid 50's. The state of the art electronics of the ; Modern aircraft use missiles designed for long range launch with modern electronics components. They have very high PK, not like early fighters. We used to have an expression when asked why MA-1/AN-ASQ25 was so unreliable in early years. Answer, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken chit. Lorin |
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Sept 27, 2020 10:46:57 GMT 9
Lorin,
1. I apologize if I'm splitting hairs on the matter of PK: Was the 80% figure based on tests on target drones?
2. Did the cooling system used on the F-4 for the AIM-4's have less coolant, or was somehow less capable than the systems used on the F-106A?
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 27, 2020 22:41:19 GMT 9
I really couldn't tell you the basis of the 80%. But that was actually a pretty good score for the time. These missiles were designed in the late 1950'/early 1960 time frame. The Genie had a much higher PK but was never used in combat.
I guess I don't understand your second question. The missiles were stand alone devices and didn't rely upon the weapons system to provide anything except pointing/targeting information. In the early days the F-106 MA-1-AN-ASQ25 IR system had to be serviced with Liquid nitrogen prior to flight. That proved to be an unreliable means of cooling the receiver head so a self contained system was used to upgrade the IR system. It worked much better and was more reliable and required less hours to prep for mission.
The F-4 did not include an IR Receiver system although it was an early design feature and even had the Bulge in front of cockpit where some early trials used an early version but never went into production. The F-4 used the IR Missile without targeting info from weapons system. The IR missiles seeker head was frozen prior to launch and provided a tone to the weapons system/pilot to provide target acquired status. So the F-106 had the IR Receiver and provided info to missile, the F-4 pilot launched the IR Missile and when the missile acquired the target it produced a tone and pilot fired. Many early failures of missiles were related to how long missile head took to start tracking target after launch.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 27, 2020 22:59:08 GMT 9
Jim, as an old MA-1 Winnie I have to question the drone kill without MA-1. Since the MA-1 was used to provide Radar into and target position to radar missile along with a bunch of parameters used in setting the missile up for launch it is highly unlikely that a radar missile was involved. Similar response to the IR missile. The missile head was also frozen in place prior to launch and it also had many parameters provided and also was frozen, or fixed, until "C" time which was launch signal. I guess an optical sight manual fire signal to missile was possible I just don't remember how that could occur unless they were in pure up the butt position on drone and used the 069 unit (Optical sight) and the missile actually physically struck the drone.
So the F-106 optical sight could be used to manually launch missile, but if I remember right the weapons selector switch was routed through MA-1 to give MA-1 info on missile selected to do those things I mentioned above.
So I know the Genie could be fired using optical sight and pilots trigger to provide "C" time launch signal. The problem with that is the Genie was an unguided missile/rocket and was provided a time of flight signal which basically was a calculated number, by MA-1, time from rocket motor light off before weapon exploded. The time of flight was calculated based upon many parameters including altitude, airspeed, attack vector and possibly many more. I can't remember exactly how the optical sight provided the Time of flight. It might have had a range selector switch to provide that data.
Without the MA-1 system the six was a very expensive tour bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 28, 2020 2:20:24 GMT 9
Jim, as an old MA-1 Winnie I have to question the drone kill without MA-1. Since the MA-1 was used to provide Radar into and target position to radar missile along with a bunch of parameters used in setting the missile up for launch it is highly unlikely that a radar missile was involved. Similar response to the IR missile. The missile head was also frozen in place prior to launch and it also had many parameters provided and also was frozen, or fixed, until "C" time which was launch signal. I guess an optical sight manual fire signal to missile was possible I just don't remember how that could occur unless they were in pure up the butt position on drone and used the 069 unit (Optical sight) and the missile actually physically struck the drone. So the F-106 optical sight could be used to manually launch missile, but if I remember right the weapons selector switch was routed through MA-1 to give MA-1 info on missile selected to do those things I mentioned above. So I know the Genie could be fired using optical sight and pilots trigger to provide "C" time launch signal. The problem with that is the Genie was an unguided missile/rocket and was provided a time of flight signal which basically was a calculated number, by MA-1, time from rocket motor light off before weapon exploded. The time of flight was calculated based upon many parameters including altitude, airspeed, attack vector and possibly many more. I can't remember exactly how the optical sight provided the Time of flight. It might have had a range selector switch to provide that data. Without the MA-1 system the six was a very expensive tour bus. |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 28, 2020 3:22:19 GMT 9
I remember Ted as having several other less than flattering names for crew jockey's. I remember when he made Tech he asked a SMSgt Flight Line Super to see the scars where they cut the 6" off his arms so they would stop dragging the ground.
Ted ran the MA-1 Nose Docks for test and alignment of MA-1. He knew the tests by heart and would turn planes ahead of schedule most of the time. That was all at McGuire from 64-67 when we disbanded. I think he went to Dover with 95thFIS when I went to Tyndall.
Lorin
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Sept 28, 2020 12:47:32 GMT 9
Lorin,
1. Accuracy: The reason I asked was because 80% was a remarkable accuracy for the time.
2. Coolant: So the IRST required coolant? As for the claim from Clashes, I'll try and find the exact passage...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 28, 2020 14:57:08 GMT 9
I remember Ted as having several other less than flattering names for crew jockey's. I remember when he made Tech he asked a SMSgt Flight Line Super to see the scars where they cut the 6" off his arms so they would stop dragging the ground. Ted ran the MA-1 Nose Docks for test and alignment of MA-1. He knew the tests by heart and would turn planes ahead of schedule most of the time. That was all at McGuire from 64-67 when we disbanded. I think he went to Dover with 95thFIS when I went to Tyndall. Lorin |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 29, 2020 5:24:28 GMT 9
I was single when I was assigned to 539th FIS at McGuire. MA-1 was at the point that all of the original factory trained tech were reaching the 4 year point in service so with-in 3 months we had almost all of the new MA-1 jeeps fresh out of tech school (about 50). We were all taking 4 hours of FTD a day and then working normal shift. For day shifters it was easy, but the mid shift folks worked full shift before doing the morning 4 hour class daily. Swing shifters did afternoon FTD class then worked full shift. At least they rotated us among the shifts so those on days could get some rest...lol.
We had several career techs in MA-1 shop. Most were SSgt/TSgt, but we did have a few MSgt like Sam Orlando, Jim Neese, and Dick Carlson. We were about evenly spread out on 3 shift 24/7 operation. Weekends were called "Standby", but pretty much was just two days of 12 hour shifts. Usually one or more of married troops would take Jeeps from their shifts home for home cooked meals. Ted and Vi were two of the more active in helping us jeeps settle in.
Sam Orlando, who left MA-1 when we broke up 539th in August 1967 when he went to PMEL school and later came to Tyndall. He was Italian, still is, and he would do Italian pasta dinners and have 6-8 of us over on weekends, usually Sunday afternoon. Occasionally he would do home made pizzas and huge salads. Sam and I had a TV repair business at Tyndall in city of Springfield. Sam still lives in area. He lives in Lynn Haven, which was the center of the bad tornado that hit few years ago. His house was newer and was built to survive storms, unlike some of older ones in Mexico Beach which were levered by storm. I visited Sam a few years ago and keep in touch in e-mail and Christmas cards. Dick Carlson tried to be good guy and invite folks over, but he had an issue with butt kissing and most younger guys didn't visit with him. I remember him as someone who never met a jeep who he couldn't volunteer for additional duties if asked. I remember one year where the base, host base, not 539th asked for volunteers to march in 4th of July parade in upstate NJ. Yup I was part of the all volunteer force...lol. The other thing I remember about Dick was his lack of knowledge of MA-1. He cross trained over as a Tech and never did much more than drive Blue 1, the MA-1 dispatch truck. He also loved day shift as he could hob knob with bosses during daily stand up.
Lorin
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Sept 30, 2020 7:52:00 GMT 9
Okay, here's the quote from Clashes, it kind of extends from page 110 on Chapter 3.
"The AIM-4D's advanced features were of little use in the fast-moving, hard-turning dogfights over North Vietnam, and many of the AIM-4D's other advertised improvements did not seem to be improvements at all. The system for cooling the AIM-4D's seeker head--which was supposed to prevent the missile from being diverted by clouds or the ground--was touted as one of the Falcon's main advances, but in practice it was seriously flawed. The liquid coolant was in a small bottle in the missile, and once the pilot armed the AIM-4D, coolant began to flow to cool the seeker head. The sequence of switches to start the coolant flow was complicated, but more importantly the coolant flow to the seeker head was continuous and could not be stopped; when the coolant was used up, the missile was effectively dead. However, the missile had only two minutes of coolant available, and since the coolant flow began when the missile was armed, the AIM-4D had to be fired within two minutes after arming, or it was useless. The F-4D pilot had a choice: Either arm the AIM-4D early in the engagement and hope he would get a chance to use it within the next two minutes, or wait and try to remember to arm it after the fight began and when there was a target available. In a turning dogfight where shot opportunities were fleeting, such restraints on a missile clearly were unacceptable."
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 30, 2020 12:09:51 GMT 9
OK, what that says is that the missile's IR seeker head is self cooled within the missile. There is no association with the aircraft. Every I*R system requires cooling. The way IR works is you supercool a plate and use optics of seeker head to focus the returned signal (Heat image) on the cooled plate. The heat on return is then processed by IR system.
So was this posting meant as rebuttal over info I provided or just your need to share with us? The info you provided further justifies the swap out of Falcon to use sidewinder. The in close air to air fights witnessed in early days of Viet Nam war highlight that American fighter pilots needed help in modern day dog fights. That's why many replacement fighters use stand off air to air missiles and if they go in for close air fight they need a cannon or mini gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 1, 2020 0:51:42 GMT 9
OK, what that says is that the missile's IR seeker head is self cooled within the missile. There is no association with the aircraft. Every I*R system requires cooling. The way IR works is you supercool a plate and use optics of seeker head to focus the returned signal (Heat image) on the cooled plate. The heat on return is then processed by IR system. So was this posting meant as rebuttal over info I provided or just your need to share with us? The info you provided further justifies the swap out of Falcon to use sidewinder. The in close air to air fights witnessed in early days of Viet Nam war highlight that American fighter pilots needed help in modern day dog fights. That's why many replacement fighters use stand off air to air missiles and if they go in for close air fight they need a cannon or mini gun.  27th FIS- Griffis AFB, NY |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 1, 2020 1:45:09 GMT 9
Damn you have a great memory for such a young guy. I sometimes marvel at things that pop up in my memory. They are stored great, but I often times have a difficult time in retrieving the info when I need it.
I was never around the older series as they were in use by Guard/Reserve by the time I got into "real" AF and away from Tech School. My uncle Homer Bay flew Fighters out of Clinton CO OH in late 50's prior to transferring to F-102 at Youngstown AFB OH. Then he flew B-57's for ADC out of Waco TX before moving into F-101 at Charleston AFB.
I went to see him at Clinton Co OH and all I remember is it was a swept wing Fighter.
I enjoy your discussions on the Early Fighters of USAF.
Lorin
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Dec 8, 2020 0:07:48 GMT 9
Lorin,
1. I said I was going to provide the source once I found it, so I did.
2. I just wanted to make sure the source was factually correct in this regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Dec 8, 2020 0:35:37 GMT 9
Wow...Time line seems like it was just yesterday we were discussing the IR Missiles, but it was way back in Sept.
Hope all is well with you and the virus. Enjoy your Holidays and all the Best.
Lorin
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Dec 22, 2020 1:34:17 GMT 9
Yeah, I kind of just looked through earlier messages.
Regardless, this whole virus thing is totally nuts, and I wish the same for you too.
|
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator 
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,445
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Dec 22, 2020 3:23:32 GMT 9
|
|
