Trivia Question
Edward Combs
payload?
Don Thompson
and propound his large load of BULLSHIT. grin
--
Don Thompson
Zoomie
KILL the ghost to reply
Pull the chocks, lets get this kite in the air.
"Edward Combs" <edc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yeff
"Edward Combs" <edc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
large
> payload?
The first thing I thought of was the 747 used to drop STS Enterprise
during the Shuttle tests but that was a NASA bird.
My second guess is the KC-135 Zero Gravity Trainer ("Vomit Comet") but
the trainees are only ballistic for a short while.
B-52 dropping the X-15?
F-15 launching an ASAT?
I'll keep thinking...
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Terry Moore
>
>Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's large
>payload?
>
>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
I don't understand the question.
Ballistics played a major role in launching the Atlas, Titan and Minuteman
missiles - among many other missile types. But ballistics data also played a
role in launching conventional and nuclear devices from the bomb bays of various
types of aircraft. Once those devices were released from the bomb bays, did they
also become classified as "aircraft"?
Is your application of the word "ballistics" a trick question?
Terry Moore
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Visit Terry Moore's "Another True Story" web
page at: http://www.io.com/~jvaughn/tmoore.htm
Copyright (c) 1999 by Terry Moore
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
billh
> Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
large
> payload?
AC-130. If you are on the receiving end, the payload is quite large.
Dave Thompson
Dave
"Terry Moore" <terry...@zmail.utexas.edz> wrote in message
news:84820q$ris$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> In article <AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
edc...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> >Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
large
> >payload?
> >
> >
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Yeff
"Dave Thompson" <bdtho...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2KM94.19864$c94.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> The B-58 Hustler launched its bomb in a ballistic toss.
>
> Dave
Actually, lots of aircraft practiced the "over-the-shoulder"
toss for nuclear delivery. Methinks the answer to this one
might not be so cut and dried...
Terry Moore
>
>The B-58 Hustler launched its bomb in a ballistic toss.
>
>Dave
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
They tried it with B-47's but the wings kept falling off
of the doggone things. Pretty nerve wracking for the
aircrews - - right?
Edward Combs
high speed break-a-way.
.......................
"Terry Moore" <terry...@zmail.utexas.edz> wrote in message
news:84820q$ris$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> In article <AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
edc...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> >Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
large
> >payload?
> >
> >
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Terry Moore says:
>
>
> I don't understand the question.
>
> Ballistics played a major role in launching the Atlas, Titan and Minuteman
> missiles - among many other missile types. But ballistics data also played
a
> role in launching conventional and nuclear devices from the bomb bays of
various
> types of aircraft. Once those devices were released from the bomb bays,
did they
> also become classified as "aircraft"?
>
> Is your application of the word "ballistics" a trick question?
>
Edward Combs
different.
.......................
"Yeff" <ye...@nospam.erols.com> wrote in message
news:84864n$t5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "Dave Thompson" <bdtho...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:2KM94.19864$c94.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> >
> > Dave
>
Edward Combs
did a high speed break-a-way
............................
"Edward Combs" <edc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Terry Moore
>
>INHO one cannot do ballistics from a bomb bay...I think that is called a
>high speed break-a-way.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
We had the bomb characteristics - - weight, wind drag co-efficient,
air speed at time of release, ground speed at time of release,
altitude, heading, track and so on. Using all of the information we
could put the bombs on a target some 5 to 7 miles ahead of the
release point and some 5 to 7 miles below. Later, of course, low-level
bombing replaced that and those parachute clusters were another
matter altogether.
Mustang
delivery).
Mike
Dave Thompson <bdtho...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2KM94.19864$c94.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> The B-58 Hustler launched its bomb in a ballistic toss.
>
> Dave
>
> "Terry Moore" <terry...@zmail.utexas.edz> wrote in message
> news:84820q$ris$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> > In article <AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> edc...@earthlink.net says...
> > >
> > >Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
> large
> > >payload?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > Terry Moore says:
> >
> >
> > I don't understand the question.
> >
> > Ballistics played a major role in launching the Atlas, Titan and
Minuteman
> > missiles - among many other missile types. But ballistics data also
played
> a
> > role in launching conventional and nuclear devices from the bomb bays of
> various
> > types of aircraft. Once those devices were released from the bomb bays,
> did they
> > also become classified as "aircraft"?
> >
> > Is your application of the word "ballistics" a trick question?
> >
Mustang
billh <willia...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:YpM94.5187$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> > Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
> large
> > payload?
>
Hawk
>
> Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's large
> payload?
Must be a trick Question. But I scored many bomb runs with the
Ballistics stripped out (bombing in a vacumn) for B47s, B52s and even on
a challenge tryed to do a B1. We were just not prepared for that sort of
movement on a radar scope.
Ed
USA Ret
Dave Thompson
aircraft was, in fact, in a ballistic arc upwards; released the bomb catches
and then actually increased its climb to fly away from the bomb 'floating'
in the bomb bay. (At least that's what my old copy of Encyclopedia
Britannica says.)
Dave
"Edward Combs" <edc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gNN94.5284$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> INHO one cannot do ballistics from a bomb bay...I think that is called a
> high speed break-a-way.
> .......................
> "Terry Moore" <terry...@zmail.utexas.edz> wrote in message
> news:84820q$ris$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> > In article <AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> edc...@earthlink.net says...
> > >
> > >Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
> large
> > >payload?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Don Thompson
COMMANDO VAULT
M-121 10,000 pounder
BLU-82 15,000 pounder
In World War II C-47s occasionally were used to drop bombs, usually when no
bombers were
available for the job. Twenty years later, during the Vietnam War, their
C-130 successors also
dropped bombs, but in a mission that was anything but a matter of
expediency. The C-130
bombers of Project COMMANDO VAULT had a reputation for accuracy exceeding
that of all
other airplanes dropping bombs during the Vietnam War.
The C-130 bombing mission came about more or less by accident. Sometime in
1968 Major Bob
Archer's crew from the 29th Tactical Airlift Squadron carried two colonels,
one Army and one Air
Force, as passengers on their C-130B while on a routine mission. The crew
got to talking to the
two field grade officers, and when they discovered that Archer was a former
B-52 pilot, they asked
him his opinion of the C-130 as a bombing platform. Archer replied that he
thought the Hercules
would make an ideal bomber. He was told that the two officers were in
Vietnam to evaluate the
use of left-over 10,000 pound bombs originally designed for the B-36 to
clear "instant" helicopter
landing zones for the Army. Plans at the time were to use Army CH-54
"Skycrane" helicopters to
drop the bombs, but the C-130 was thought by many to be a more suitable
vehicle. A single C-130
could carry two bombs and do it for less cost. By the time the flight ended,
Major Archer had been
asked to head-up a program to drop the huge bombs from C-130s. Archer
returned to the United
States to work on the project, then came back to his unit at Clark AB,
Philippines. His crew made
the first drops in South Vietnam in the fall of 1968 and plans were made for
the 463rd Tactical
Airlift Wing to begin regular missions in the spring of 1969.
Converting the HERCULES to a bomber required only a few slight
modifications, primarily the
addition of radio reception capabilities to the loadmaster's interphone
station in the cargo
compartment. The C-130 loadmaster would actually release the load, an
operation that gave them
the distinction of being the only enlisted men in the Air Force to release
an aerial weapon. The
bombs were delivered using modified heavy drop techniques, with a ground
radar operater in an
MSQ-77 radar site providing guidance to the crew to position the airplane
over the release point.
Drops were begun in the spring of 1969, with crews from each of the four
squadrons of the 463rd
wing - the 29th, 772nd, 773rd and 774th - qualifying for the mission after a
checkout by previouly
qualified crews. Though the bombs were used primarily to create helicopter
LZs, the targets were
sometimes right on top of enemy base camps! My first bomb resulted in a Bomb
Damage
Assessment of an estimated 100 enemy KIA! Not only did the landing zones
created by the bombs
provide clearings in the jungle where none had existed, they were also safe
for the troops who
used them since everything within a mile of the blast was either killed or
temporarily
incapacitated by the explosion. Bombs were dropped for both the Army and the
United States
Marines.
By early 1970 the supply of M-121 10,000 pound bombs was beginning to
dwindle, while at the
same time their age often led to duds. And a dud bomb had to be detonated to
keep the supply of
TNT from falling into enemy hands! In response to the Army's request, the
Air Force created the
more powerful Blu-82, a 15,000 pound bomb containing a slurry mixture of TNT
and propane.
The drop procedures were the same, and two bombs could still be carried
aboard a C-130.
The bombs were a smash with the Army and Marines, who began calling for the
detonation of one
or a pair to launch new operations in the jungles. When U.S. and South
Vietnamese troops
crossed the border into Cambodia in May, 1970 they assaulted into LZs that
had just been created
by the detonation of four of the weapons. Similar drops preceded the South
Vietnamese invasion
of Laos in early 1971. Blu-82s were dropped on Communist positions in Laos
in support of the
South Vietnamese troops.
Because the delivery of the huge weapons required no modification to the
C-130, a crew could
drop two bombs in the morning, then spend the remainder of their crew duty
day shuttling into a
nearby forward airfield bringing in ammuntion and fuel or other supplies for
the troops who were
mounting the operation the bombs had just kicked off. COMMANDO VAULT
demonstrated the
versatility of the C-130 as they were bombers in the morning, and transports
in the afternoon.
When the 463rd was inactivated in 1971, the COMMANDO VAULT mission passed to
the 374th
wing at CCK Air Base on Taiwan. The 374th continued to drop the bombs until
the end of
American participation in the war in 1973. The South Vietnamese Air Force
was provided with
some Blu-82s during the final days of the war. USAF C-130s flew the rigged
bombs to Tan Son
Nhut where they were reloaded aboard South Vietnamese C-130As for delivery.
A single bomb
dropped near the town of Xuan Loc killed a reported 1,000 North Vietnamese
troops.
COMMANDO VAULT had some by-products in that the radar-guided deliveries led
to similar
techniques being developed for the delivery of cargo. The GRADS method
proved to be a
God-send during the siege of An Loc in the spring of 1972 as it allowed USAF
C-130 crews to
drop from altitudes above the range of the antiaircraft guns and SA-7
missiles that were being
used by the North Vietnamese. Dropping loads rigged by US Army riggers with
special rigging
techniques allowing high-velocity drops from high altitudes, the GRADS crews
were able to
achieve the same accuracy with cargo bundles that they were attaining with
the bombs.
And just now accurate were the bombers? I have a slide in my files showing a
M-121 exploding
smack on the top of a mountain peak west of Da Nang! In 1969 SAC sent out a
letter showing the
average circular error of all aircraft dropping bombs in Vietnam using the
ground radar method.
The C-130s had the lowest circular error of all the types - including SAC's
own B-52s!
During Operation DESERT STORM the Blu-82s were resurrected. A few were
dropped by special
operations MC-130s in the desert, both to detonate Iraqi mines and to serve
as a psychological
weapon.
--
Don Thompson
Zoomie
KILL the ghost to reply
Pull the chocks, lets get this kite in the air.
"Mustang" <michae...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:s6flp2...@corp.supernews.com...
> Perhaps the MC-130 dropping a 15,000-pounder on a droughe?
>
> billh <willia...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YpM94.5187$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > > Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
> > large
> > > payload?
> >
Terry Moore
>
>I think if you go back and examine the B-58 release methodology, the
>aircraft was, in fact, in a ballistic arc upwards; released the bomb catches
>and then actually increased its climb to fly away from the bomb 'floating'
>in the bomb bay. (At least that's what my old copy of Encyclopedia
>Britannica says.)
>
>Dave
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
The B-58 carried its bomb in a pod under the fuselage. If I
remember correctly - - and I'm not sure that I do - - the
bomber was to approach the target at tree-top level. It was
to go into a steep climb to make a loop and go back out the way
it came in. In the upward climb, the bomb was released to travel upward
in an arc for a distance then began a downward trajectory. In the meantime,
the bomber reached a max altitude of about 10,000 feet, rolled over,
descended behind hills and got the Hell out of there. The pod carried
a 10 megaton payload to begin with - - I think.
There was no bomb-bay on the B-58 Hustler.
Dave Thompson
bomb rack to bomb bay. The article goes on to say that the aircraft was
designed to carry one 10 mt bomb on an external hardpoint.
Dave
Terry Moore
The bombs were delivered using modified heavy drop techniques, with a ground
radar operater in an MSQ-77 radar site providing guidance to the crew to position the
airplane over the release point.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
That "Mis-cue 77" was quite a radar set. I began with the old
SCR-584 then went to the MSQ-1 and MSQ-2 and on up. In
Vietnam, I believe that they called the MSQ-77 sites "Sky Spot".
Terry Moore
>>
>You are, of course right. In my haste to read the citation, I converted
>bomb rack to bomb bay. The article goes on to say that the aircraft was
>designed to carry one 10 mt bomb on an external hardpoint.
>
>Dave
>
>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
The B-58 was developed at Fort Worth. I was stationed at
a Radar Bomb Scoring Site on Love Field in Dallas at the
time. They used our radar quite a bit in testing the B-58.
It was an experience none of us guys could ever forget.
In those days, civilians didn't have jets. The Air Force controlled
all air traffic over 17,000 feet. I can truthfully say that I used to
be an Air Traffic Controller at Love Field - - although I am deaf now.
When the Air Force began low-level bombing, the RBS sites in the
metropolitan areas were all moved to remote locations - The Scenic
Badlands of South Dakota, Glasgow AFB, Montana; Hysham, Montana;
Fort Stockton, Texas; Thoreau, New Mexico; Herlong, California;
Babbitt, Nevada - - - and on and on like that.
Terry Moore
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Memories keep coming back. As I said earlier, the Air Force tried
using the B-47 for that loop-the-loop bomb toss technique but the
wings of the B-47 wouldn't take the stress. So they were developing the
B-58 to do it. We - at the Radar Bomb Scoring Site in Dallas - were
sworn to SECRECY!!! While we didn't dare even WHISPER about it,
the techique became part of one of those "Smiling Jack" comic strip
episodes.
Big Guy
It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics:
*29 have been accused of spousal abuse
*7 have been arrested for fraud
*19 have been accused of writing bad checks
*117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
*3 have been arrested for assault
*71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
*14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
*8 have been arrested for shoplifting
*21 are current defendants in lawsuits
*In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving
Can you guess which organization this is? Give up?
It's the 535 members of your United States Congress. The same group that
perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep
the rest of us in line.
Terry Moore
>*In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving
>
>
>Can you guess which organization this is? Give up?
>
>
>It's the 535 members of your United States Congress. The same group that
>perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep
>the rest of us in line.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
Man alive!!! With THAT many DWI's in a group of 535 - - why - -
them fellers needs to pass some laws to put a STOP to that
kind of stuff!!!!
(That DOES make sense - - doesn't it?)
(That's what I was afraid of - - - it DOES make sense!!!)
Hawk
>
> In article <LaV94.20322$c94.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>, bdtho...@home.com says...
>
> >>
> >bomb rack to bomb bay. The article goes on to say that the aircraft was
> >designed to carry one 10 mt bomb on an external hardpoint.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Terry Moore says:
>
> The B-58 was developed at Fort Worth. I was stationed at
> a Radar Bomb Scoring Site on Love Field in Dallas at the
> time. They used our radar quite a bit in testing the B-58.
> It was an experience none of us guys could ever forget.
>
> In those days, civilians didn't have jets. The Air Force controlled
> all air traffic over 17,000 feet. I can truthfully say that I used to
> be an Air Traffic Controller at Love Field - - although I am deaf now.
> When the Air Force began low-level bombing, the RBS sites in the
> metropolitan areas were all moved to remote locations - The Scenic
> Badlands of South Dakota, Glasgow AFB, Montana; Hysham, Montana;
> Fort Stockton, Texas; Thoreau, New Mexico; Herlong, California;
> Babbitt, Nevada - - - and on and on like that.
>
> Terry Moore
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
And guess what. The Air Force came to Army Air Defense and asked them
if they could use Nike Missle Sites to score Air Force Bomb Runs. We
were provided gear that would change the ratio of our plotting board
system for higher sensitivity. They provided very good radio equipment
for commo with the Air Craft. And they taught us how to score the runs.
We knew all IPs and all targets, mind you a tgt could be the NW corner
of Hughes AirCraft Building on Sepulveda Blvd and these guys would some
times nail it. There were miss distances which would determin hit or
miss depending on what sort of bomb run was being attempted.
Earlyer I said I had scored B1 runs but it was not, it was a B58
Hustler, which went thru us like we were not even there. It was not
charged to us as we were only notified that it was making a run and if
we chose to try we could. I did and we didn't. What an AirPlane that
must have been. Terry, do you know what a Nike Defense Run is? I'm not
sure you would have scored one if you were not a Nike site. It is sorta
one of those no holds barred runs where both air and ground let it all
hang out. Much fun. Sometime after the Air Crew begins the sidestep
manuver, we on the ground simulate launching a missle and tell them so.
They then get to use every thing, including chaff to knock us off track
before the missle gets there. At fire you tell them time of flight to
reach them. On this occasion I told the Air Craft Commander "Missle
away, you got 38 seconds to jump". He took exception to it and wrote a
letter to my Brigade Commander. I found out about 3mo later at a party.
He said he just threw it in the trash cause he wasn't going to piss off
the only guy that could score runs without Air Force help on site. BTW,
I always had a case of beer bet on the Air Crew when we ran Nike Def
Runs. A select crew could make it very hard to get a missle to them
unless you had a select crew on the ground against them.
Ed
USA Ret
Mike Kopack
Mike
Mustang wrote:
> So did the B-47, as well as the F-105 (which was designed intially for nuke
> delivery).
>
> Mike
>
> Dave Thompson <bdtho...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:2KM94.19864$c94.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> > The B-58 Hustler launched its bomb in a ballistic toss.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > "Terry Moore" <terry...@zmail.utexas.edz> wrote in message
> > news:84820q$ris$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> > > In article <AaL94.5110$GF1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > edc...@earthlink.net says...
> > > >
> > > >Trivia Question : What USAF Aircraft used "Ballistics" to launch it's
> > large
> > > >payload?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > > Terry Moore says:
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't understand the question.
> > >
> > > Ballistics played a major role in launching the Atlas, Titan and
> Minuteman
> > > missiles - among many other missile types. But ballistics data also
> played
> > a
> > > role in launching conventional and nuclear devices from the bomb bays of
> > various
> > > types of aircraft. Once those devices were released from the bomb bays,
> > did they
> > > also become classified as "aircraft"?
> > >
> > > Is your application of the word "ballistics" a trick question?
> > >
> > > Terry Moore
> > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore
Terry, do you know what a Nike Defense Run is? I'm not
>sure you would have scored one if you were not a Nike site. It is sorta
>one of those no holds barred runs where both air and ground let it all
>hang out. Much fun.
>Ed
>USA Ret
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
I never was on a Nike Site. I had to farm some of my
men out to them on a TDY basis and some of them told
some pretty good tales when they came back home.
I do know that they made the bomb runs simulate combat
conditions as close as they could and if that meant facing
enemy missiles, so much the better. On our USAF RBS sites,
we combined the bomb runs with ECM acttivity.
It was around 1960 that the Air Force became interested in
the Army's M-33 fire control system and I think that might have
been what you used on the Nike sites. The Air Force did away
with the friction clutch antenna drive - - replaced it with direct
drive gears and did some other stuff. It became the MSQ-35 and
later the MSQ-39. The MSQ-77 was a built-from-scratch system
that incorporated ideas from all over the place and added a lot of
new features.
At Fort Stockton, we took that X-Band M-33 and locked on to
a Chicken Hawk. I guess it got to warming the hawk up because it
started flapping and doing all sorts of aerial acrobatics. S-Band
wouldn't do that to the birds.
Terry Moore
>
> Even the little F-16 tosses it's 'special weapons'.
>
>Mike
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
"Little" F-16?
Heh, heh, heh. A single F-16 can carry more destructive
power than all the combined destructive power delivered by
the aircraft during World War Two.
THAT is a LOT of destructive power.
Mustang
>dropped by special
>operations MC-130s in the desert, both to detonate Iraqi mines and to serve
>as a psychological
>weapon.
--
Don Thompson
Zoomie
My boys dropped those. A nearby British SF unit thought the first one was a
nuke!
Mike
Yeff
"Hawk" <haw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3868F1BF...@ix.netcom.com...
> Earlyer I said I had scored B1 runs but it was not, it was a B58
> Hustler, which went thru us like we were not even there.
A hell of a bird that was ahead of its time. When you see pictures
of it sitting alone on the flightline you think it's just a very big
fighter.
Then you see a picture of it sitting next to a B-52 and you realize
just how big of a bomber the Hustler actually was.
Whenever the subject of best looking aircraft comes up over on
rec.aviation.military, the Hustler always gets a nod.
Can you imagine if the XB-70 (Valkeryie) had come to fruition?
Now there's a plane to make your eyes water!
Hawk
>
> In article <3868F1BF...@ix.netcom.com>, haw...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> Terry, do you know what a Nike Defense Run is? I'm not
> >sure you would have scored one if you were not a Nike site. It is sorta
> >one of those no holds barred runs where both air and ground let it all
> >hang out. Much fun.
>
> >Ed
> >USA Ret
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Terry Moore says:
>
> I never was on a Nike Site. I had to farm some of my
> men out to them on a TDY basis and some of them told
> some pretty good tales when they came back home.
>
> I do know that they made the bomb runs simulate combat
> conditions as close as they could and if that meant facing
> enemy missiles, so much the better. On our USAF RBS sites,
> we combined the bomb runs with ECM acttivity.
All bomb runs were at least a test of ECM and usually some sort of
manuevering. The Nike Def Run more or less removed any real concern for
the actual HIT/MISS of the bomb, and allowed the Air Crew and the Ground
Crews the opportunity to go balls to the wall against each other all the
way to release. The trick was to stay locked on the AirCraft untill the
Missle (simulated) had time to reach it. Using IPs from out over the
California desert areas they were allowed to use Chaff which in
combination with forward dispensing and at the right time in the turn,
caused us much concern.
>
> It was around 1960 that the Air Force became interested in
> the Army's M-33 fire control system and I think that might have
> been what you used on the Nike sites.
M33s were the forerunner basic system of the Nike System. Nike just
added much more to the system. Many of the old M33 parts were used
unchanged in the Nike systems. Nike did go to direct drive rather than
friction. In Alaska, during winter, every morning you had to put a
slow aided rotation into the track antenna to crush the coating of frost
on the friction ring before it would keep up with a target.
The Air Force did away
> with the friction clutch antenna drive - - replaced it with direct
> drive gears and did some other stuff. It became the MSQ-35 and
> later the MSQ-39. The MSQ-77 was a built-from-scratch system
> that incorporated ideas from all over the place and added a lot of
> new features.
>
> At Fort Stockton, we took that X-Band M-33 and locked on to
> a Chicken Hawk. I guess it got to warming the hawk up because it
> started flapping and doing all sorts of aerial acrobatics. S-Band
> wouldn't do that to the birds.
Also in Alaska, we would lock onto flocks of geese. That system had an
optical scope system that followed the tracking radar and you could see
how it messed up the directional ability of the geese. They would just
go chaotic in flight untill you turned the transmitters off, then they
would join up again and continue. Any RF that far out would most likly
not effect the birds other than sensing abilities. But chicken hawk,
who knows, maybe so.
Ed
USA Ret
DARREL RANEY
Big Guy wrote:
>
> Can you imagine working at the following Company?
> It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics:
>
> *29 have been accused of spousal abuse
> *7 have been arrested for fraud
> *19 have been accused of writing bad checks
> *117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
> *3 have been arrested for assault
> *71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
> *14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
> *8 have been arrested for shoplifting
> *21 are current defendants in lawsuits
Terry Moore
>
>your point?
>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
Awwwwww!!!! C'MON now!!!!
Surely you've heard that old admonition "Don't
do as I do, do as I tell you!!!"
Terry Moore
>All bomb runs were at least a test of ECM and usually some sort of
>manuevering. The Nike Def Run more or less removed any real concern for
>the actual HIT/MISS of the bomb, and allowed the Air Crew and the Ground
>Crews the opportunity to go balls to the wall against each other all the
>way to release. The trick was to stay locked on the AirCraft untill the
>Missle (simulated) had time to reach it. Using IPs from out over the
>California desert areas they were allowed to use Chaff which in
>combination with forward dispensing and at the right time in the turn,
>caused us much concern.
>
>Also in Alaska, we would lock onto flocks of geese. That system had an
>optical scope system that followed the tracking radar and you could see
>how it messed up the directional ability of the geese. They would just
>go chaotic in flight untill you turned the transmitters off, then they
>would join up again and continue. Any RF that far out would most likly
>not effect the birds other than sensing abilities. But chicken hawk,
>who knows, maybe so.
>
>Ed
>USA Ret
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
I think I knew that the Army and Air Force versions of the M33 were
upgraded simultaneously. It makes sense - they were both doing very
similar work.
I never thought about the X-Band waves affecting the sensing mechanisms of
the birds. Like you said, we would be watching them through the collimation
scope and we'd see them start to do things that they didn't normally do. It makes
sense - that their navigational senses were going haywire and they were trying to
compensate. That pretty well describes what we saw in the Chicken Hawks.
I mentioned that the old RBS sites had to move from metropolitan areas to remote
sparsely populated areas to support low-level bombing runs. When the Air Force
RBS sites left the big cities, the NIKE sites took over on high-altitude bombing runs.
The first time I locked on to a flock of geese over Dallas, I was thoroughly confused.
If forget just how high they were flying and how fast but I remember being astonished
at both. I looked through the collimation scope to see what was there and I could
barely make out the individual birds in their familiar "vee" formation.
Hawk
>
> your point?
Maybe he had none, but a good guess would be that if this is the group
assuming to tell us all how we must live our lives, then there needs to
be a massive change in Congress. Every year they presume to take more
and more control of our every day lives, I resent that. Then you
discover these folks need intensive help in their lives and it then
really pisses me off. Do you want me to do as you do or just as you
say? Not hardly. But it takes more than just getting pissed, we have
to take a stand and tell them all that we expect a standard from them as
high or higher than what they demand of us. I have a serious hard time
following someone I resent, and I resent such activity from trusted
elected officials. An old Cowboy once told me 'we ought to kill em all
and start over', it has taken some time but I now know what he meant.
Ed
USA Ret
Terry Moore
Terry Moore says:
I was just reminiscing about the part of auto-track radar history that I've
been part of.
I started out with the SCR-584 which was a WWII creation. It was an S-Band radar
using a fixed-frequency magnetron. (Heh, heh. Dig that phrase "FIXED-frequency".
That doggone thing drifted when ever and where ever it wanted to.) They offset the
dipole from the center of the focal point then spun it at 1800RPM and that produced a
30CPS tracking signal. The dipole changed polarization as it spun around.
Next came the MPS-9 which was part of the MSQ-1 and MSQ-2 systems. The MPS-9
was a highly refined SCR-584. The dipole maintained a horizontal polarization as it spun at
30 CPS and the magnetron was tunable. There were a lot of other refinements but basically,
the MPS-9 was a re-worked SCR-584.
The M33/MSQ-35/MSQ-39 was X-Band and used a wobulating reflector disk to produce the
sequential lobing. (Sequential lobing was the formal reference to offsetting the transmitted
signals at a nominal 30-cps rate.)
After that, I worked with the Atlas Guidance system which used a monopulse system.
Four dipoles surrounded the focal point of the antenna - two for azimuth and two for elevation.
If the received signal reached all four dipoles exactly in phase, then the antenna was aimed
dead center at the source of the signal. If there was any phase difference at all, it was detected
and the antenna was re-positioned. It was far more accurate than the
"conical-scanning/sequential-lobing" approach. It played a major role in putting Neil Armstrong
on the moon.
I don't know what they are using these days. My guess is that sequential-lobing and mono-pulse
are now relegated to history. My guess is that satellites now do what radar did in the old days - - when
it comes to training our troops. Radar, no doubt, still plays a major role in battlefield situations.
I don't know how many Radar Bomb Scoring sites still exists. They quit calling them RBS sites long-long
ago. They first became Combat Evaluation sites. I don't know what they call them these days. Every
once in awhile, I read something in the news about the sites at LaJunta, Colorado and a site near
LasVegas still being in operation.
When I first went into RBS, there were RBS sites at Dallas, Oklahoma City, Montreal, San Juan,
London, Marakech (Morrocco), Spokane, and many other lush assignments like that. There were
no Air Force Bases near most RBS sites. The troops lived on the local economy and got paid
extra for not having the things that go with being stationed on-base. For example, we got paid
$2.57 a day for rations while our on-base counterparts got paid $1.33 a day. We also got more money
for quarters.
Terry Moore
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
For example, we got paid $2.57 a day for rations while our on-base counterparts
got paid $1.33 a day.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
On-base people got $1.10 a day for rations back then - - not $1.33.
Sorry..
Mustang
Normandy to help provide air support for ground forces, and moved the system
frequently. I had the chance to visit with Gen Blair Garland who ran this
operation for Pete Quesada. What a can-do attitude those guys had!
Mike
DARREL RANEY
about the other 237 members of congress? Some of them have even only
been accused, never convicted of what he listed. Think about that.
Hawk
You guys got me curious now. Just how did they use the SCR584. I only
saw one operational and that was way back in 52 or so. They were 90mm
and maybe 120mm gun control radar systems, at least for the Army. The
were replaced by Western Elec M33 systems which also controled 90 or
120mm guns in the Air Def role. I am not certain the M33 refered to by
Terry Moore is the same system. They both it seems were X-Band track
radar and used L Band for Search. The SCR 584 was the last Doppler
system used by the Army that I am aware of. So unless I am confused,
the M33 was pulse modulated and could care less about freq, phase, for
det movement.
Ed
USA Ret
Terry Moore
>You guys got me curious now. Just how did they use the SCR584. I only
>saw one operational and that was way back in 52 or so. They were 90mm
>and maybe 120mm gun control radar systems, at least for the Army. The
>were replaced by Western Elec M33 systems which also controled 90 or
>120mm guns in the Air Def role. I am not certain the M33 refered to by
>Terry Moore is the same system. They both it seems were X-Band track
>radar and used L Band for Search. The SCR 584 was the last Doppler
>system used by the Army that I am aware of. So unless I am confused,
>the M33 was pulse modulated and could care less about freq, phase, for
>det movement.
>
>Ed
>USA Ret
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
The SCR-584 was pulse modulated. The pulse width was
0.8US and the peak power was a nominal 250KW. The PRT
was 410PPS. It was coupled to an RC-294 plotting board. That
plotting board was crude even by the standards of that day. They
used it to guide bombers in on targets in spite of cloud coverage.
At that time, the Norden Bomb Site was the "In" thing but it was
good only in clear weather. The 584 could bring the bombers in
no matter what the weather. The 584 wasn't doppler by any stretch
of the imagination.
The M33 the Air Force used was the same one that the Army used.
We sent our people to the Army school at Aberdeen Proving Grounds,
Maryland until we got established in our own right.
In the early days of Ground Directed Bombing, we had a live bombing
range on Matagorda Island, Texas. We dropped "bombs" that had the
same weight and aerodynamic characteristics of nuclear devices. The
practice bombs marked the impact point with a black powder charge.
By seeing the actual impact point and comparing it to our Ground Radar
calculations, we were able to determine the accuracy of the system.
It was amazingly close.
Terry Moore
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
I got in a hurry and goofed on some of my terminology. The PRT is
pulse recurrence time - - - on the SCR-584 it was 2,440 microseconds.
The Pulse Repitition Rate was 410 pulses per second.
Hawk
>
> In article <386BD2DE...@ix.netcom.com>, haw...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> >You guys got me curious now. Just how did they use the SCR584. I only
> >saw one operational and that was way back in 52 or so. They were 90mm
> >and maybe 120mm gun control radar systems, at least for the Army. The
> >were replaced by Western Elec M33 systems which also controled 90 or
> >120mm guns in the Air Def role. I am not certain the M33 refered to by
> >Terry Moore is the same system. They both it seems were X-Band track
> >radar and used L Band for Search. The SCR 584 was the last Doppler
> >system used by the Army that I am aware of. So unless I am confused,
> >the M33 was pulse modulated and could care less about freq, phase, for
> >det movement.
> >
> >Ed
> >USA Ret
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Terry Moore says:
>
> The SCR-584 was pulse modulated. The pulse width was
> 0.8US and the peak power was a nominal 250KW. The PRT
> was 410PPS. It was coupled to an RC-294 plotting board. That
> plotting board was crude even by the standards of that day. They
> used it to guide bombers in on targets in spite of cloud coverage.
> At that time, the Norden Bomb Site was the "In" thing but it was
> good only in clear weather. The 584 could bring the bombers in
> no matter what the weather.
Now I am curious. What would you consider the range of the 584? Lets
assume it to be equal to the M33. You would almost have to have one of
these set up in the camp you were attempting to bomb to use it as a bomb
control system. I understand you are saying they only track the Bomber,
and using the Plotting boards can visually set his course but without
some sort of balistic tie in, how in the world did they know when to
release the bombs? You sort of indicate this method was used in weather
when the Norton was not capable. But with such short range you would
have to have one set up in every target area to do what you suggest if I
understand you correctly.
The 584 wasn't doppler by any stretch
> of the imagination.
Then I was missinformed. I never worked on the 584 but was told the
track radar was doppler. I only saw one working one time and never then
did any operating of the system. I have seen tons of parts for them as
I was charged with turning them all in when I got to Alaska in a 120mm
gun outfit, controled by M33s. I was of the impression the M33 replaced
the 584 and the mission was the same, Gun Control. There was no manual
aiming of the guns other than to get them close to where the radar
directed before engaging the AUTO switch. After that the pointing and
fuse setting was done by the computer in the M33 using data from the
Target Tracking Radar and what ever weather info you computed and
entered into the computer. (Balistics) The Gun Crews loaded and pulled
the trigger and thats about it. Guns were grouped by muzzel velocity as
that is the only thing we could not control seperatly. I mean, if you
point one gun you point them all, and MV made a big difference in where
the round would go relative to unlike MV in the other guns. We had ways
to check MV, and group them among the firing units to keep them as
close togeather as possible. 4 guns to a Battery.
Ed
USA Ret
>
> The M33 the Air Force used was the same one that the Army used.
> We sent our people to the Army school at Aberdeen Proving Grounds,
> Maryland until we got established in our own right.
>
> In the early days of Ground Directed Bombing, we had a live bombing
> range on Matagorda Island, Texas. We dropped "bombs" that had the
> same weight and aerodynamic characteristics of nuclear devices. The
> practice bombs marked the impact point with a black powder charge.
> By seeing the actual impact point and comparing it to our Ground Radar
> calculations, we were able to determine the accuracy of the system.
> It was amazingly close.
>
Mustang
but I've been able to verify everything except the personal details. Quesada
and Garland (along with others, like Ed Bowles of MIT back in the states)
had the SCR linked up to a Norden bombsight inside a tent. They used the
meteorolgical info available, along with airspeed & altitude from the
aircraft, and ran the signal information backward through the sight to a
point of light tracing along a map. With this data they could tell the
aircraft when to release their bombs over a known target. I don't know the
specifics on all this (I'm a C-130 & helicopter kinda guy!) but they used
this technique throughout 1944 & 45 when the weather was TU. Not the most
effective means of using air, but it beat not doing anything, especially in
December 1944. Garland told me this method was still in use during the early
days of the USAF to score bomb runs. You are the first person to confirm
that to me.
Mike
Jerry Fowler
The range will be determined by the PRT, i.e. how long you listen for
a return. The info above "The PRT was 410PPS". is a bit confusing as
PRT would be in microseconds and AFAIK PPS stands for Pulses Per
Second which is PRF. A PRF of 410 quite long, most AF search systems
had a PRF in the range of 270 - 330 with a range of 220 -240
miles..The second factor in range determination is going to be
receiver sensitivity -XXdbm.
Jerry
>assume it to be equal to the M33. You would almost have to have one of
>these set up in the camp you were attempting to bomb to use it as a bomb
>control system. I understand you are saying they only track the Bomber,
>and using the Plotting boards can visually set his course but without
>some sort of balistic tie in, how in the world did they know when to
>release the bombs? You sort of indicate this method was used in weather
>when the Norton was not capable. But with such short range you would
>have to have one set up in every target area to do what you suggest if I
>understand you correctly.
>
<rest snipped.
Terry Moore
Terry Moore says:
The range of the SCR-584? I'm not sure. I was only exposed to the SCR-584
briefly before working with the MPS-9 which was a much improved SCR-584. I
can tell you about the MPS-9 and let you draw your own conclusions about the
SCR-584.
Keep in mind that both the 584 and MPS-9 had pulse widths of 0.8 microseconds, a
PRT of 2440 microseconds and a peak power of 250KW. So, it would appear that both
radars would have the same range. But that isn't necessarily true.
The 584 had a 6 foot parabolic reflector. The MPS-9 had an 8 foot reflector. The 584 depended
strictly on skin tracking. The MPS-9 could track by either reflected echoes or by beacon
transponder signals.
In practice, we used skin tracking mostly for Radar Bomb Scoring. The beacon was used for
Ground Directed Bomb runs. Using the beacon, the range was limited only by the PRT of 2440
microseconds which, of course was equivalent to 100 nautical miles. With skin tracking, we
could pick up the aircraft about 40 to 50 miles out and that was plenty for Radar Bomb Scoring.
You are correct that the Army used the SCR-584 for what we in the Air Force called "Gun-Laying".
I've never heard of Doppler being used for automatic tracking. Sequential lobing (where the
beam is rotated around an axis); monopulse (The Atlas Guidance System); and phased-array
(a multi-antenna farm) are the only types that I am familiar with. When I left the AF in 1975,
Doppler was used to distinguish between still and moving targets in both defensive and weather
radar systems.
Yes. The M33 was pulse modulated but I don't remember the pulse width or pulse repetition rate.
I also do not know what speed the beam was rotated at. I do know that the M33 had a feed horn
behind the antenna lens. The feed horn fed a small, rotating dish that was offset. The rotating dish
reflected the rotating beam into the antenna lens and on out into space.
I've never known anything about the search radar used with the M33 fire control system. I do know
that the M33 was X-Band - about 9000mhz. The SCR-584/MPS-9 was S-Band - about 2700-2900mhz.
Interestingly, the MPS-9 magnetron was a type QK5586. That was the same magnetron used in the
first microwave ovens to be marketed in the US.
As for our techniques - - we made two basic assumptions to begin with:
1. Gravity pulls a bomb toward the Earth at the rate of 32 feet-per-second-per-second in a vacuum.
2. A bomb released from a bomb bay will continue to travel forward at the same speed and in the
same direction that the plane was traveling when the bomb was released - - in a vacuum.
Note those "in a vacuum" stipulations. They make or break the whole thing.
After the "vacuum" situation was known, we calculated the effects of wind, air resistance, etc, to
determine where the bomb would have detonated if it had been a real bomb. Aircrews, of course
did their calculations similarly except in reverse order.
When it was a ground directed bomb run, we would tell the pilot, navigator and bombardier what
turns to make, etc. Shortly before the plane reached the bomb release point, we would send up
a tone. When we cut the tone off, the bomb was automatically released.
When it was a Radar Bomb Scoring run, the aircraft would turn on a tone a few seconds before
bomb release. When the tone quit, the plotting pen would lift for a second then return to the
paper. Using the point where the pen lifted, we would calculate where the bomb would have
detonated.
Keep in mind that detonation of a nuclear weapon takes place high above the target - - not on
impact with anything on the ground. It's a tricky business to hit the target.
For the benefit of lurkers who might not be so familiar with this subject, here's a bit more trivia.
The two A-Bombs dropped on Japan were equivalent to roughly 20,000 tons of TNT in explosive
force - - disregarding other factors.
The B-29s were "hanging on their props" at about 29,000 feet when they release those extremely
heavy bombs. Once the bombs were released, the B-29s lurched upward in altitude. The pilots put
the bombers in a tight U-Turn so that they would have their tails to the blast. They had about 45
seconds to increase their distance from the blast.
When the bombs detonated, the direct blast hit the bombers and pushed them upward quite a bit.
Then, the bomb blast reflected off of the ground and hit the bombers with a second blow. In all the
shock waves from the 20,000 ton bombs blew the bombers from about 29,000 feet to somewhere
between 40,000 and 45,000 feet high.
Now, it wasn't long after WWII was over before they came up with bombs that had the equivalent
blast power of 1 million tons of TNT. The 10megaton bombs followed soon after that. The trick the
Air Force had to learn was how to deliver those super weapons without blasting themselves right
out of the sky. The solution was to come in low, pop-up, drop the bomb on a cluster or parachutes
then hide behind hills or mountains before the bomb detonated. I think the B1 uses that technique
now. Or one similar to it.
The range of the SCR-584? I'm not sure. I was only exposed to the SCR-584 briefly before
working with the MPS-9 which was a much improved SCR-584. I can tell you about the
MPS-9 and let you draw your own conclusions about the SCR-584.
Keep in mind that both the 584 and MPS-9 had pulse widths of 0.8 microseconds, a PRT of
2440 microseconds and a peak power of 250KW. So, it would appear that both radars would
have the same range. But that isn't necessarily true.
The 584 had a 6 foot parabolic reflector. The MPS-9 had an 8 foot reflector. The 584 depended
strictly on skin tracking. The MPS-9 could track by either reflected echoes or by beacon
transponder signals.
In practice, we used skin tracking mostly for Radar Bomb Scoring. The beacon was used for
Ground Directed Bomb runs. Using the beacon, the range was limited only by the PRT of 2440
microseconds which, of course was equivalent to 100 nautical miles. With skin tracking, we could
pick up the aircraft about 40 to 50 miles out and that was plenty for Radar Bomb Scoring.
You are correct that the Army used the SCR-584 for what we in the Air Force called "Gun-Laying".
I've never heard of Doppler being used for automatic tracking. Sequential lobing (where the
beam is rotated around an axis); monopulse (The Atlas Guidance System); and phased-array
(a multi-antenna farm) are the only types that I am familiar with. When I left the AF in 1975,
Doppler was used to distinguish between still and moving targets in both defensive and weather
radar systems.
Yes. The M33 was pulse modulated but I don't remember the pulse width or pulse repetition rate.
I also do not know what speed the beam was rotated at. I do know that the M33 had a feed horn
behind the antenna lens. The feed horn fed a small, rotating dish that was offset. The rotating
dish reflected the rotating beam into the antenna lens and on out into space.
I've never known anything about the search radar used with the M33 fire control system. I do
know that the M33 was X-Band - about 9000mhz. The SCR-584/MPS-9 was S-Band - about
2700-2900mhz.
Interestingly, the MPS-9 magnetron was a type QK5586. That was the same magnetron
used in the first microwave ovens to be marketed in the US.
As for our techniques - - we made two basic assumptions to begin with:
1. Gravity pulls a bomb toward the Earth at the rate of 32 feet-per-second-per-second in a
vacuum.
2. A bomb released from a bomb bay will continue to travel forward at the same speed and
in the same direction that the plane was traveling when the bomb was released - - in a
vacuum.
Note those "in a vacuum" stipulations. They make or break the whole thing.
After the "vacuum" situation was known, we calculated the effects of wind, air resistance, etc,
to determine where the bomb would have detonated if it had been a real bomb. Aircrews, of
course did their calculations similarly except in reverse order.
When it was a ground directed bomb run, we would tell the pilot, navigator and bombardier
what turns to make, etc. Shortly before the plane reached the bomb release point, we would
send up a tone. When we cut the tone off, the bomb was automatically released.
When it was a Radar Bomb Scoring run, the aircraft would turn on a tone a few seconds
before bomb release. When the tone quit, the plotting pen would lift for a second then return
to the paper. Using the point where the pen lifted, we would calculate where the bomb would have
detonated.
Keep in mind that detonation of a nuclear weapon takes place high above the target - - not on
impact with anything on the ground. It's a tricky business to hit the target.
For the benefit of lurkers who might not be so familiar with this subject, here's a bit more trivia.
The two A-Bombs dropped on Japan were equivalent to roughly 20,000 tons of TNT in explosive
force - - disregarding other factors.
The B-29s were "hanging on their props" at about 29,000 feet when they release those extremely
heavy bombs. Once the bombs were released, the B-29s lurched upward in altitude. The pilots
put the bombers in a tight U-Turn so that they would have their tails to the blast. They had about
60 seconds to increase their distance from the blast.
When the bombs detonated, the direct blast hit the bombers and pushed them upward quite a bit.
Then, the bomb blast reflected off of the ground and hit the bombers with a second blow. In all the
shock waves from the 20,000 ton bombs blew the bombers from about 29,000 feet to somewhere
between 40,000 and 45,000 feet high.
Now, it wasn't long after WWII was over before they came up with bombs that had the equivalent
blast power of 1 million tons of TNT. The 10megaton bombs followed soon after that. The trick the
Air Force had to learn was how to deliver those super weapons without blasting themselves right
out of the sky. The solution was to come in low, pop-up, drop the bomb on a cluster or parachutes
then hide behind hills or mountains before the bomb detonated. I think the B1 uses that technique
now. Or one similar to it.
The commanders of the RBS sites were usually ex-navigators. My commander at Glasgow Air Force
Base, Montana, was Lt. Colonel Edward Milton Hollacher. If you look in the history books, you'll
see his name as Captain EM Hollacher - navigator on one of the first aircraft to every circle the Earth
without refuelling.
Terry Moore
>The commanders of the RBS sites were usually ex-navigators. My commander at Glasgow Air Force
>Base, Montana, was Lt. Colonel Edward Milton Hollacher. If you look in the history books, you'll
>see his name as Captain EM Hollacher - navigator on one of the first aircraft to every circle the Earth
>without refuelling.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
Oh did I ever goof on that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Col Hollacher was a navigator on one of the first
planes to circle the Earth non-stop. They re-fuelled in
flight. I think it was in 1956.
Wow!!! If you gotta goof, might as well do it big time!!!
Terry Moore
>The range will be determined by the PRT, i.e. how long you listen for
>a return. The info above "The PRT was 410PPS". is a bit confusing as
>PRT would be in microseconds and AFAIK PPS stands for Pulses Per
>Second which is PRF. A PRF of 410 quite long, most AF search systems
>had a PRF in the range of 270 - 330 with a range of 220 -240
>miles..The second factor in range determination is going to be
>receiver sensitivity -XXdbm.
>
>Jerry
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
Yes. You are correct. I got mixed up in some of my
terminology. 410PPS is a PRT of 2440 microseconds
Jerry Fowler
wrote:
>In article <n38o6sci204hc21ue...@4ax.com>, gfo...@southwind.net says...
>
>
>>The range will be determined by the PRT, i.e. how long you listen for
>>a return. The info above "The PRT was 410PPS". is a bit confusing as
>>PRT would be in microseconds and AFAIK PPS stands for Pulses Per
>>Second which is PRF. A PRF of 410 quite long, most AF search systems
>>had a PRF in the range of 270 - 330 with a range of 220 -240
>>miles..The second factor in range determination is going to be
>>receiver sensitivity -XXdbm.
>>
>>Jerry
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>Terry Moore says:
>
>Yes. You are correct. I got mixed up in some of my
>terminology. 410PPS is a PRT of 2440 microseconds
>
>
Terry,
Just blame it on Y2K, everyone else is or will :-)
Jerry
Terry Moore
>Terry,
>Just blame it on Y2K, everyone else is or will :-)
>
>Jerry
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
And that reminds me - - - I've got a plentiful supply
of Y2K mosquitoes for sale here at Lake Bastrop.
I garr-un-dad-gum-tee-yuh that they'll bite just as
well on January 1, 2000 as they do on 31 December 1999.
Happy New Year Jerry.
Charlie Revie
Terry Moore wrote:
>
> In article <3868F356...@greenville.infi.net>, mko...@greenville.infi.net says...
> >
> > Even the little F-16 tosses it's 'special weapons'.
> >
> >Mike
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Terry Moore says:
>
> "Little" F-16?
>
> Heh, heh, heh. A single F-16 can carry more destructive
> power than all the combined destructive power delivered by
> the aircraft during World War Two.
>
> THAT is a LOT of destructive power.
>
Charlie Revie
a Doppler radar.
Hawk wrote:
>
> Mustang wrote:
> >
> > SCR-584...Interesting piece of equipment. 9 TAC initiated its use in
> > Normandy to help provide air support for ground forces, and moved the system
> > frequently. I had the chance to visit with Gen Blair Garland who ran this
> > operation for Pete Quesada. What a can-do attitude those guys had!
> >
> > Mike
>
Charlie Revie
site, Sylvester, GA, and while I never heard the term "Nike Defense Run" I
suspect it is what we simply called an RBS run. The blue suits would show up,
somebody would enable the mods, and B52 would come in "doing its thing." On one
of those visits I as one of the blue suit controllers about the apparent
ineffectiveness of the B52 ECM against the Nike Target Tracking Radar and asked
if the B52 was holding back becuase of security limitations (even I as a non
radar operator type person could still easily keep the target in the gate) and
was told that B52 ECM was designed against Soviet TTR and that they shared only
narrow overlap. Regardless the Range Only Radar (ROR) was out of this spectrum,
was clear as a bell and "right on target" during the RBS runs.
Charlie
Terry Moore wrote:
>
> In article <3868F1BF...@ix.netcom.com>, haw...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> Terry, do you know what a Nike Defense Run is? I'm not
> >sure you would have scored one if you were not a Nike site. It is sorta
> >one of those no holds barred runs where both air and ground let it all
> >hang out. Much fun.
>
> >Ed
> >USA Ret
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Terry Moore says:
>
> I never was on a Nike Site. I had to farm some of my
> men out to them on a TDY basis and some of them told
> some pretty good tales when they came back home.
>
> I do know that they made the bomb runs simulate combat
> conditions as close as they could and if that meant facing
> enemy missiles, so much the better. On our USAF RBS sites,
> we combined the bomb runs with ECM acttivity.
>
> It was around 1960 that the Air Force became interested in
> the Army's M-33 fire control system and I think that might have
> been what you used on the Nike sites. The Air Force did away
> with the friction clutch antenna drive - - replaced it with direct
> drive gears and did some other stuff. It became the MSQ-35 and
> later the MSQ-39. The MSQ-77 was a built-from-scratch system
> that incorporated ideas from all over the place and added a lot of
> new features.
>
> At Fort Stockton, we took that X-Band M-33 and locked on to
> a Chicken Hawk. I guess it got to warming the hawk up because it
> started flapping and doing all sorts of aerial acrobatics. S-Band
> wouldn't do that to the birds.
>
Terry Moore
On one
>of those visits I as one of the blue suit controllers about the apparent
>ineffectiveness of the B52 ECM against the Nike Target Tracking Radar and asked
>if the B52 was holding back becuase of security limitations (even I as a non
>radar operator type person could still easily keep the target in the gate) and
>was told that B52 ECM was designed against Soviet TTR and that they shared only
>narrow overlap.
>Charlie
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
If the ECM crews had effectively jammed the tracking radar,
the practive bomb run was over. They only demonstrated that they
COULD have jammed it if it had been an enemy tracking
radar.
As I said, they made the practice bomb runs as realistic as
possible but the only way to make it truly realistic is to run
against an enemy.
Terry Moore
>
>Yeah and one WW2 attack submarine could sink the entire Spanish Armada.
>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
Yeah - - and one Muzzle-loading musket could have dispatched
a lot of rock throwing warriors from an earlier era. It goes on and
on like that.
Pop Wetsu
>Terry Moore says:
>
>Yeah - - and one Muzzle-loading musket could have dispatched
>a lot of rock throwing warriors from an earlier era. It goes on and
>on like that.
Well maybe one or two rock throwing warriors. The third one would have
skewered him. With a spear. Or a big rock. Ha . Happy New Year Terry!!
Pop
Terry Moore
a lot of rock throwing warriors from an earlier era. It goes on and
on like that.
In article <FnoyH...@server.nlbbs.com>, nomor...@mail.forme says...
>Well maybe one or two rock throwing warriors. The third one would have
>skewered him. With a spear. Or a big rock. Ha . Happy New Year Terry!!
>Pop
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
Them muskets could hurl them rifle balls a purty furr piece
compared to how far a warrior could hurl a rock or spear.
I think the musket had more of an edge than you give it
credit for.
Happy New Year to you too Pop.
Terry Moore
>
>My point being that saying that one modern fighter bomber carries more fire
>power than all the munitions dropped in WW2 is really saying nothing ... nuclear
>weapons don't compare well with conventional HE just as subs don't compare with
>the Spanish Armada, justs as muskets don't compare well with spear throwers.
>However, in the last instance the spear throwers frequently overwhelmed the
>musket shooters ... this was most recently demonstrated rather frequently in the
>American west of a little more than a 100 years ago.
>
>Charlie
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
Yeah. Us Mangy Redskins DID teach them forked tongue
White Men a lesson or two back in them days.
(I'm 5/8th Cherokee.)
Don Thompson
"Mangy Redskin" I think not. Most of "the people" are rather clean. At
least I think so.
Other than that quibble one reason the "cavalry" were whacked so well was
the Army policy of the springfield and aimed fire.A good bowman can have 3
arrows in the air before a cav trooper can reload.
Remember "white eyes" Custer Died for Your Sins.( Floyd Westerman)
--
Don Thompson
Zoomie
KILL the ghost to reply
Pull the chocks, lets get this kite in the air.
"Terry Moore" <terry...@zmail.utexas.edz> wrote in message
news:84o60k$dgm$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> In article <386F918B...@zianet.com>, cre...@zianet.com says...
> >
< snip >
Charlie Revie
power than all the munitions dropped in WW2 is really saying nothing ... nuclear
weapons don't compare well with conventional HE just as subs don't compare with
the Spanish Armada, justs as muskets don't compare well with spear throwers.
However, in the last instance the spear throwers frequently overwhelmed the
American west of a little more than a 100 years ago.
Charlie
Terry Moore wrote:
>
> In article <386D7D30...@zianet.com>, cre...@zianet.com says...
> >
> >Yeah and one WW2 attack submarine could sink the entire Spanish Armada.
> >
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Terry Moore says:
>
> Yeah - - and one Muzzle-loading musket could have dispatched
> a lot of rock throwing warriors from an earlier era. It goes on and
> on like that.
>
Matthew J. McCarthy
list is miniscule in stature.
Big Guy <themo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:84aoj1$gd1$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Terry Moore
>
>What about the guy in the White House, between his wife and himself that
>list is miniscule in stature.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Terry Moore says:
The really, REALLY sad part is that every time another
item of scandal surfaces about Billy Boy, his popularity
rating soars higher and higher.
Jerome Delaney
on terrorism"
Clinton will get his some day, and I hope that I am still around to see it,
because when it happens, its going to hurt him and hurt him hard.
Jerry D.
Terry Moore wrote in message <84pqq9$dim$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
Hawk
>
> I *think* the HAWK continuous radar (the one that looked like Mickey's ears) was
> a Doppler radar.
Parts of it was. For a small system it was fairly complex. Had the
opportunity on a few occasions to watch them fire at Annual Service
Practice out in the desert near Ft Bliss. I actually saw some missles
blast off, hit a sand dune/mesquite bush, bounce up and keep going to a
good kill. Least to say, it got pretty exciting around them. But to
watch a Nike Hercules was pure evidence of a great system in action.
The booster probably goes as far as a Hawk but the missle just keeps
going and going and going.
Ed
USA Ret
Hawk
>
> Gawrsh, that was a long time ago, butter bar time. Yes, I was on a Nike Herc
> site, Sylvester, GA, and while I never heard the term "Nike Defense Run" I
> suspect it is what we simply called an RBS run.
The term RBS simply meant Radar Bomb Scoring. A Nike Def Run was
designed to placate the Army is my guess, in that we gave the Air Force
confirmation of their crews proficiency but in doing so never really got
anything out of it. The problem was the cost to the AirForce to fly one
run and if you messed up along the way somewhere and was not traking the
Bomber (which ever kind it was) at the time of bomb release, you were
charged with an abort. That was severly frowned on by the Airforce and
it got worse as it came down to the unit doing the scoring. So you took
no chances. They hit the L-band Search radar with some electronic
Jamming at the IP, and as soon as the track radar was pointed at them,
they hit the X-=band radar. I don't recall any mild jamming from them.
They were for sure going to stop before the Bomber got too far into the
run, just so we had a chance to get tracking them at release time. The
Nike Def Run was designed to let them and the ground crews go full
capability against each other with the outcome being succesfull if the
bomber showed up and the radar found him. I will tell you they had no
problem jamming any part of the Nike Tracking Radar Spectrum. The TRR
radar operating in KsubU and using two transmitters active at the same
time, one into space and one into a dummy load could defeat the jamming
and at least give accurate range to the Bomber. Keeping the jamming
maximized with the Target Track radar insured near proper Elevation and
Azimuth to the Target and a kill was not hard to achieve.
The blue suits would show up,
> somebody would enable the mods, and B52 would come in "doing its thing."
On my site, the Blue Suits (AF I presume) did not have to show up and
seldom did. I and my crews did it all.
Ed
USA Ret
On one
> of those visits I as one of the blue suit controllers about the apparent
> ineffectiveness of the B52 ECM against the Nike Target Tracking Radar and asked
> if the B52 was holding back becuase of security limitations (even I as a non
> radar operator type person could still easily keep the target in the gate) and
> was told that B52 ECM was designed against Soviet TTR and that they shared only
> narrow overlap. Regardless the Range Only Radar (ROR) was out of this spectrum,
> was clear as a bell and "right on target" during the RBS runs.
>
> Charlie