Q'ns about retired airframe

[Max the Mad Russian]

Hello Gents,

This first time about A-6E which was the most dangerous airplane to the Soviet Navy, at least after AGM-84A IOC in 1981. Strangely enough, the Harpoon IOC for P-3 community which had been achieved a couple of years earlier, passed completely unnoticed by Soviet Navy, since the 675 Project SSN (Echo-class; called "camp-cot" in Russian naval slang), being the main target for this missile, was considered doomed in any case as it have been clear enough that no one in NATO naval forces of Med will allow the sub to dive and escape after the launch. Does it matter then which weapon would be the coup de grace's choice? But pairing Harpoon and Intruder for ASuW was received here as important as, probably, the Nautilus's first nuclear run. That is why this airplane drew attention in details. Now it all is in the past, and I hope I can ask politely about some of them. The question is: there were two radios out there in cockpit, some called "front" and "aft" respectively. Had it been about the places those two sets were installed at or, maybe, a sign of the functions?

 

[HAL Pilot]

The Echo SSN was not the main target for P-3 Harpoon. It was an ASUW weapon from it’s introduction whether the target was a surfaced sub or a ship.

You have some really fucked up ideas with regard to the US military.

Whoever said there was no such thing as a stupid question obviously has never been on a web forum with you. Every aircraft I know of has more than 2 radios. Who cares what they are called or where they are physically located.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

This ASuW weapon didn't see the Iranian small combattant in 1988, just like Soviet monsters. And yes, the questions are stupid from the standpoint of the one who ceases to think because he knows.

 

[BigJeffray]

"Front" and "Aft" is usually just a way to say "Pri(mary)" and "Aux(iliary)" or "Comm1" and "Comm 2," etc.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

"Front" and "Aft" is usually just a way to say "Pri(mary)" and "Aux(iliary)" or "Comm1" and "Comm 2," etc.

Ok, thanks a lot. Just a little bit more in the comms, ok? I've been told while visiting Pacific Aviation Museum when there was the only F-14 in the back hangar that there was a preferrable pattern in Tomcat squadrons - the RIO was kinda main radio-operator. "If a driver got the mike it meant something unusual", alike. Is it right? And what about that in A-6 community?

 

[BigJeffray]

No idea about those communities honestly. In F-18Fs, the WSO owns most of the administrative comms and the pilot and WSO split the tactical comms based on certain standards, with the WSOs generally talking on the radio more than pilots in tactical situations. I can't imagine older communities really did it much differently in general terms.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Thank you very much. Maybe that guy in PH museum meant the same - tactically the NFO should have much more to say/ask by radio than the pilot. Thanks again.

 

[HAL Pilot]

This ASuW weapon didn't see the Iranian small combattant in 1988, just like Soviet monsters. And yes, the questions are stupid from the standpoint of the one who ceases to think because he knows.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I flew P-3s for 6 months in the Persian Gulf in 1988 in support of the Operations Earnest Will and Praying Mantis. The A-6Es that sunk the Iranian frigate used a combination of Harpoons and bombs. The Harpoons hit. On our daily patrols, the P-3s carried Rockeye because Boghammers were the biggest threat and they were made of fiberglass (not conducive to radar guide warheads).

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

There was a surface navy attempt to hit that frigare with RGM-84.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Gents,

The KA-3B Whale was evidently the heaviest aircraft on the deck and had 35000 lbs of fuel to distribute while aloft. As I understand it was the most suitable tanker of all times. Then KA-6D that had about 23000 lbs but was still "loved one", and then S-3B (evidently of lesser capacity) with mixed feelings. Note please that all of them retired for now so the question seems to be unsensitive and is - what is the main factor for tactical pilot who receives fuel to rate the tanker (by type) better or worse? Evidently not only its fuel volume as such matters, right? What else? Aside the tanker's crew willingness to help, what else?

 

[sparky]

There was a surface navy attempt to hit that frigare with RGM-84.

Actually two were fired in the SAG Charlie engagement during Praying Mantis. Joshan shot a Harpoon that was ineffective after SAG Charlie employed chaff. The round fired by BAGLEY probably didn't find enough to guide on after 5 Standards were shot in surface mode at the Joshan. Joshan was a FAC, a pretty small target to start, and she had most of her superstructure shot away and was riding low when BAGLEY's Harpoon would have been in the terminal phase.

There're some speculation and some interviews indicating a problem with the switchology might have afflicted the shot BAGLEY took (involving training considerations and a Launch Control Panel version issue), but other indications collaborated her target might just have not presented a big enough return after five SM hits.

The Iranian Harpoon shot at SAG Charlie is variously claimed to have been diverted by chaff, or failed to guide. Given the relative lack of care the Iranians seemed to give those rounds that'd been in inventory pre-revolution, either claim seems credible to me. As best I remember it, Joshan's Harpoon did not so much guide on the chaff as it just kept going ... but that's from a long time ago and if you want to know more I suggest you pick up the books by Zatarain (Tanker War, America's First Conflict With Iran) and/or Wise (Inside the Danger Zone: The U.S. Military in the Persian Gulf 1987–88).

 

[sparky]

Gents,
The KA-3B Whale was evidently the heaviest aircraft on the deck and had 35000 lbs of fuel to distribute while aloft. As I understand it was the most suitable tanker of all times. Then KA-6D that had about 23000 lbs but was still "loved one", and then S-3B (evidently of lesser capacity) with mixed feelings. Note please that all of them retired for now so the question seems to be unsensitive and is - what is the main factor for tactical pilot who receives fuel to rate the tanker (by type) better or worse? Evidently not only its fuel volume as such matters, right? What else? Aside the tanker's crew willingness to help, what else?

@Max the Mad Russian - I am from a Maritime background with some small amount of time in and around S-3s, so this is mostly the world as best I know it from outside the tailhook communities.

In planning terms there're at least two distinct sets of tanking profiles; escort/strike and recovery. An escort tanker should be about as fast and keep similar altitudes to the strike aircraft it's with - not a hard and fast rule, but the more mismatch, the more painful and limiting for the strike package. A recovery tanker can usually work lower and slower. "Buddy tanking" usually involves strike aircraft refueling similar aircraft - we did that with A-4s and A-7s (and A3D/EKA-3 etc.), and do that today with Super Hornets ... though my friends at Boeing call Supers with refueling stores strike/recovery tankers.

Ideally you want a tanker that can 'keep up' - speed and altitude - with the strike aircraft, and do so without burning too much of the tanker's fuel load. As with the S-3 days tanking the airwing, there are ways to mitigate pain with a lower performance tanker (or if you prefer, a tanker having different optimum cruise profiles than the strike/escort components). As you say above, you want a tanker with a lot of 'give'. You should also have an airframe that will take a lot of orbits as recovery tanker and keep up with your strikers, be reasonably fast even when loaded if you need to gas up your CAPs or refuel an outbound strike package, and have a lot of bringback (able to land with unexpended load, whether ordnance/pods or internal fuel). If you're putting up at least one recovery tanker per cycle, you'd better have an airframe able to handle lots of launches and recoveries, too.

Back in the days of USN battlegroups pushing northeast toward the Baltic and beyond, we [sometimes, occasionally] used A-7s as tankers to keep the CAPs out, longer. KA-6s would launch and refuel A-7Ds with buddy stores that would then sprint to the outer zone to refuel the F-14s ... at least that was what we occasionally did.

The Whale was a great platform but getting older and harder to maintain, and even the VQs had to eventually retire them. I got a ride once and it was awesome, but back to your question; a lot of give and a lot of missions packed into one airframe, and pretty decent performance. From what the Whale drivers on the VQ side told me, it could keep up with a strike package.

The KA-6 likewise had decent performance comparable to the A-6s in the airwing. Made for a decent strike tanker - it had a speed/altitude/range profile close to the A-6s and A-7s (and F/A-18s).

The [K]S-3B had decent give and bringback but didn't have quite the compatible speed/altitude/range profile as the strike aircraft in the wing. The S-3 was built for relatively low and slow compared to most USN strike aircraft. A strike package had to go lower and slower than ideal for the S-3s to keep up (even if the S-3s launched ahead they tended to economically cruise lower).

 

[zipmartin]

@Max the Mad Russian
........we [sometimes, occasionally] used A-7s as tankers to keep the CAPs out, longer. KA-6s would launch and refuel A-7Ds with buddy stores that would then sprint to the outer zone to refuel the F-14s ... at least that was what we occasionally did.

Correction: the Air Farce had A-7D's; the Navy had A-7A's, B's, E's and some C's and later TA-7's, but never A-7D's.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

The Iranian Harpoon shot at SAG Charlie is variously claimed to have been diverted by chaff, or failed to guide.

Thank you very much Sparky. Soviet naval staffs had considered Harpoon as ASW weapon rather than ASuW mostly due to the difference from French Exocet, which is supersonic on terminal phase and had relatively simple active radar seeker, quite easy to jam. Harpoon is notably slower but its seeker is much harder to defeat. Since any surfaced sub has nothing to oppose such missile but ECM and the speed of missile isn't critical factor, the thought was that it is special ASW weapon, and its indifference to a sinking FAC, a target comparable to a sub's conning tower, was not empressive here back then in 1988. Though, Soviet sea skimmers of that time were (and are, I think) no better in this respect, since the Russin X-35 Uran (NATO SSN25 Switchblade, IOC 1995), is definitely a clone of RGM-84D. In any case, we couldn't launch the SSN22 Sunburn in Baltic Sea even during special exercises since no one could warrant the missile won't hit some civilian target.

The [K]S-3B had decent give and bringback but didn't have quite the compatible speed/altitude/range profile as the strike aircraft in the wing. The S-3 was built for relatively low and slow compared to most USN strike aircraft. A strike package had to go lower and slower than ideal for the S-3s to keep up (even if the S-3s launched ahead they tended to economically cruise lower).

Thanks again, it was quite informative. Look, what about MPRA aircraft for recovery tanking nowadays? Say, P-8A that has tanking gear/package in a bomb bay just like "bomber" Whales (As, KAs, EKAs) to support carrier ops, can bring much more fuel convenience to airspace around the carrier than F/A-18E in this role, I suppose. And - maybe - in some cases, as the mission tanker too, why not? Would it be any worse than these USAF tankers?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

the Navy had A-7A's, B's, E's and some C's

Thanks a lot. BTW, Robert Dorr wrote the A-7B and C could be used as CAP fighters from the boilered carriers when the wind over deck was not enough for F-14As to be catapulted. Is it right? If so - was it a legacy of parental design of F-8?