B-52 shot down by a NV Mig-21 during "Linebacker 2"
Djordje Pavicevic
Linebacker 2:
The People s Army of Viet Nam (PAVN) had a small but highly dedicated air
force, and this service is memorialized at the Air Force Museum at 189 Doung
Troung Chinh in the Dong Da district. Ask the driver to take you to the Bao
Tang Khong Quan . It will cost you a dollar to get in, and a half dollar for
your camera. Special attention is given to the Hero Pilot Pham Tuan, who on
27/12/72 shot down a B-52 over Hoa Binh. The museum contains both the helmet
he wore that night, and his MiG-21. (See photos) The MiG-21, s/n 5121,
belonged to the 22nd Heroic Regiment which managed to down 137 aircraft
duringthe course of the entire war.
source: www.stratofortress.org
What do you say to this, BUFF pilot? :-)
BUFDRVR
I say the North Vietnameese can make any claims they want, sort of like the
Serbs, that doesn't make it true, sort of like the Serbs.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Djordje Pavicevic
Stratofortress.org, and their webmaster. That is not a reoprt which says
ther NVs "are claiming", it says "it really happened". Why do you make it so
hardto accept?
L'acrobat
Djordje Pavicevic <pav...@eunet.yu> wrote in message
news:7rmssf$2o2$1...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu...
It's an article written by a Canadian about his trip to a Vietnamese Museum,
he is simply passing on the information presented there - he probably has
nothing to check the facts against.
BUFDRVR
>Stratofortress.org,
Based on a reporters visit to the museum! Boy, you have problems with "factual"
evidence. Stratofortress.org is simply giving you both sides of the story. The
NV claim they downed BUFF's. Stratofortress.org is not providing any proof of
that shootdown, just reporting on the NV claims. Why don't I believe the NV
claims ? Because with our ground based radar sites and our ship based radar
sites, one of them would have picked up the MiG's either on their way to shoot
down the BUFF's, or upon their victorious return. *Also* there were literally
hundreds of fighter aircraft, who also have radar, airborne and none of them
picked up any bogey that could have splashed 2 B-52's.
>That is not a reoprt which says
>ther NVs "are claiming", it says "it really happened"
With this thought process, its no wonder you believe the Yugoslav government. A
trip report by a reporter surely doesn't say; "this really happened"
Djordje Pavicevic
>It's an article written by a Canadian about his trip to a Vietnamese
Museum,
>he is simply passing on the information presented there - he probably has
>nothing to check the facts against.
It is almost unbelievable. The whole world lies, claims, falsifieds
evidence, only the pure US of America is clean and faultless, "telling the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"!
Well, checking the facts by you probably means: "he didn't ask any US
aviator to verify this claim. If he had, he would realize how wrong he has
been, because not one Mig-21 shot down anything, but B-52s did, and more
than one I can tell you." And that leads to another question: "was any US
plane shot down over Vietnam" or if it was, was it shot down by a MiG-21?
Those are clearly claims and NV lies, nothing more. US doesn't support this
theory, so it has to be a lie.
How sad, but true!
In several non-US books, you can find info that one US B-52 WAS shot down by
a MiG-21 during Linebacker 2, but if only one US book doesn't mention this
story, it has to be a lie, right? So, US books are not saying anything, so
it never happened as they are concerned, right?
Let me rephraze this analysis:
What are the chances of more than a dozen NV MiG-21s to get over Hanoi, even
engage into a dogfight with F-4 cover (which is far less superior in a
dogfight than a MiG-21) and at least one of them manages to fire a K-13
missile from a 10km distance, shooting down the B-52?
Or should we say: how are the chances that one B-52 allow itself to be
approached by a MiG-21 fighter, armed with 10km range AAMs which the MiG
pilot decides not to fire, but then, the B-52's tail gun starts firing
blowing away the MiG?
But if MiG really manages to shot down a B-52, in US terms, that would be
stated under:
a) unexplained
b) mid-air collision
c) lightning
d) spatial disorientation
e) technical malfunction (my favorite!)
f) even a SAM kill, just not the MiG kill
Again, how sad, but true!
Ed Rasimus
>To BUFDRVR and all those who say that no Mig-21 shot down a B-52 during
>Linebacker 2:
>
>The People s Army of Viet Nam (PAVN) had a small but highly dedicated air
>force, and this service is memorialized at the Air Force Museum at 189 Doung
>Troung Chinh in the Dong Da district. Ask the driver to take you to the Bao
>Tang Khong Quan . It will cost you a dollar to get in, and a half dollar for
>your camera. Special attention is given to the Hero Pilot Pham Tuan, who on
>27/12/72 shot down a B-52 over Hoa Binh. The museum contains both the helmet
>he wore that night, and his MiG-21. (See photos) The MiG-21, s/n 5121,
>belonged to the 22nd Heroic Regiment which managed to down 137 aircraft
>duringthe course of the entire war.
>
>source: www.stratofortress.org
>
>What do you say to this, BUFF pilot? :-)
I'd say the discussion by a Canadian "expert" in nuclear weapons
visiting a museum 27 years after the event is interesting but hardly
definitive. He saw a helmet and a MiG-21 display along with an account
written for the display of something that may or may not have
happened. He even has a picture labeled "tail of B-52" which clearly
shows a chunk of F-4 rudder along with lots of other aircraft
wreckage.
BUFFDRVR wasn't there, but I flew ten out of the eleven days of
Linebacker II. MiGs flew on several days and one or two nights. The
night environment was quite intense, but the concentration of
defensive action was SA-2, which was the only surface weapon that had
any possibility of being effective at the altitudes of B-52 ingress.
I've previously indicated in this newsgroup that I don't give a lot of
credibility to the "confirmed" MiG kills awarded to the B-52 tail
gunners and I give even less to the this claim of a MiG victory.
Wishing doesn't make it so.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
g_al...@hotmail.com
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >But those are not NV claims, those are statements made at
> >Stratofortress.org,
>
> Based on a reporters visit to the museum! Boy, you have problems with
"factual"
> evidence. Stratofortress.org is simply giving you both sides of the
story. The
> NV claim they downed BUFF's. Stratofortress.org is not providing any
proof of
> that shootdown, just reporting on the NV claims. Why don't I believe
the NV
> claims ? Because with our ground based radar sites and our ship based
radar
> sites, one of them would have picked up the MiG's either on their way
to shoot
> down the BUFF's, or upon their victorious return. *Also* there were
literally
> hundreds of fighter aircraft, who also have radar, airborne and none
of them
> picked up any bogey that could have splashed 2 B-52's.
BUFDRVR, there are several crew accounts stating that MiGs were flying
formation with them, and had gotten there undetected. When I get home,
I'll be happy to post a quote. What is clear is that VPAF MiGs were
able to get into the stream, and get into firing position, and that they
did launch Atolls at B-52s. In another post, you mentioned Boyne's and
Dorr's books on the Buff. Both are good (I own a copy of Boyne), but
both were written before decent info (i.e., not the usual clumsy
propaganda) started to be available from the VPAF side. You might want
to get a copy of the Squadron/Signal book "Air War over North Vietnam,"
by Dr. Istvan Toperczer. This is an honest attempt, using official NVN
records as well as interviews with many of the pilots involved, to
present the air war from the VPAF perspective. I'm certain that the
Vietnamese are being reasonably honest, because they admit many of their
problems and screwups, and while denying many U.S. claims, also confirm
kills that we only list as probable, damaged, or don't even claim.
Some of it still contains a whiff of propaganda, but it's far more
reliable than what has been available heretofore.
Naturally, being from only one side, it's not complete accurate, and
they overclaim (as do we). Still, it's only by using both sides records
(after weighting them for obvious bias or propaganda slant) that we can
come close to establishing what really happened.
As to whether there were any BUFF kills by MiG-21s, you have said that
there weren't any. To be more accurate, what you mean is that the U.S.
doesn't _credit_ any BUFF losses to MiGs, and that you believe that to
be true, which is another thing altogether.
The VPAF claim two B-52 kills by MiG-21s during LBII (both MFs, not PFs
as someone wrote. Both pilots flew with the 921st Regiment, which had
MFs, and was apparently the only night-trained unit at the time. I
don't know where this "22nd Regiment" stuff in the museum comes from
(maybe a mis-translation), but that's not the unit's designation).
Assuming the dates are the same we use (the NVN used a different time
zone, and midnight screws things up, plus I don't know if they figure a
day from midnight to midnight), one of the claims appears to be
definitely erroneous, as it is stated to occur on Dec. 28th (when we
lost no B-52s). It appears to be sort of a "he didn't die in vain" kind
of thing, as the MiG was reported to have been lost due to FOD from the
target blowing up, with the pilot lost. That one we can fairly safely
discount.
Such posthumous inflation of achievements for morale purposes is fairly
common, in this country as much as any other: Colin Kelly comes to mind,
as he was credited with scoring more hits on a BB and sinking it (not
present, he was targeting a CA) than he had bombs on board, all of which
missed.
Pham Tuan's claim cannot be so easily dismissed, as we did lose a B-52
on the night in question (two actually), the times and locations more or
less match up, and from the accounts it is clear that he did fire and
saw what he believed to be a BUFF going down from his missile. Now,
it's unlikely that we'll ever know whether that BUFF was shot down by
Pham Tuan, an SA-2, or for that matter went merrily on its way none the
worse for wear. What we do know is the total number of B-52s that the
U.S. admits to losing during LB II (15), that the U.S.A.F. credits all
of them to SAMs, and that the VPAF credit two to MiGs (and claim 31
total by SAMs during LB II, which we believe to be wrong because we
trust U.S records to be accurate as far as our losses are concerned,
and the U.S. losses have been cross-checked with numerous sources both
official and un-official, with agreement among them). Barring forensic
examination of the wreckage at the time, there's no way to establish
just what scored the kill at this late a date.
The same goes for the MiG-21 kills claimed by B-52 gunners: the U.S.A.F.
officially credits both of these, but only the VPAF know for sure if
they lost MiGs on the nights in question. Same goes for the SAM
effectiveness; we claim that something like 1,240 SAMs were launched
during LB II; the Russians, who after all actually supplied them and
were acting as technical advisers, say that only 443 were launched,
while accepting NVN overclaiming that's high in some cases by as
much as an order of magnitude, which is fairly typical for ground
defenses. The British SAM and AAA overclaimed by about the same ratio
in the Falklands, and for that matter, it appears that we may have been
at least that high in our claims of tank/APC/artillery kills in Kosovo.
The only things each side can be sure of are those facts which can be
established from their own records or direct evidence (like wreckage);
everything else is an estimate, with a greater or lesser degree of
accuracy, until they can be cross-checked with records from the other
side which attempt to be objective.
All this is not to say that I buy the Serbian claims of NATO losses,
which are clearly mainly for propaganda purposes and don't pass even the
simplest reliability tests required of evidence. OTOH, when you add in
the UAV losses (about 20-30, IIRR), TALDs and the like also shot down,
it's certainly possible to see how the Serbs could honestly believe that
they did in fact do more than shoot down just two (manned) a/c and
damage two others. Even so, the total wouldn't come anywhere near 388
or whatever is being claimed, and the willingness of the Serbs and
others to believe the wildest claims based on absolutely no evidence,
and lacking any attempt at critical reasoning, is disturbing.
Guy
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
L.R.S.
<pav...@eunet.yu> wrote:
>
>
>It is almost unbelievable. The whole world lies, claims, falsifieds
>evidence, only the pure US of America is clean and faultless, "telling the
>truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"!
Djordje Pavicevic
Its unbelievable to me that you would trust the validity of
any information you receive without at least a second source
to confirm the facts and at least one of those sources
producing more than just "I know a guy, who has a friend,
who screwed the whore of a guy who slept with the brother of
a rice paddy slumlord, who rents to a family who fed the
nephew of a pilot who said he shot down a B-52 in his paper
airplane."
If you and your cohorts in this newsgroup are soo easily
duped into believing what YOU want to believe, then why
can't you believe that there is a Buff driver in this
newsgroup...or a former fighter pilot...or a current fighter
pilot...or a "janitor at an RAF base?" It would seem to me
that your belief system would tell you to trust what they
say, simply because they say its true. I at least do.
By the way...I spent time in the service of the U.S. -- in
the Air Force to be specific. I also spent three years at
Aviano before anyone knew the place existed. You know what
my job was in the Air Force? It would be what you would
call propaganda. I called it informing and educating my
fellow servicemen. But the difference in what I did and
what you and your cohorts do, is I provided proof, though a
lot of people reading base newspapers would disagree with
that...hehehe.
I at least didn't make things up to assist my denial process
I was/am in. Venik, Mladen and the rest of the cohorts,
really need to spend a few months in therapy. Your denial
is getting to the point where you are believing everything
except the truth.
Finally, Venik...just where did you get your crap info of an
aircraft shot down above 15,000 feet leaves nothing
recognizable upon hitting the ground? If that was true,
explain to me how your ancestors in the days following May
1, 1960, were able to collect, analyze and put on display --
after identifying -- the remains of a U-2? And don't tell
me Gary Powell was flying below 15,000 feet because cloud
cover was preventing him from photographing his target.
Finally, Mladen and Djordje and Venik and the rest of the
cohorts...we here in the good ol' U.S. of A. have a saying.
It comes from the state we love to call Missouri (or misery
depending on who you are). That saying goes something like
this: "Show me."
I'll be waiting.
L. Sobkoviak, who spent 16 plus years spewing forth
propaganda after spending four years sniffing AVGAS.
Venik
>Its unbelievable to me that you would trust the validity of
>any information you receive without at least a second source
>to confirm the facts...
And nevertheless Bible is still the most popular book. Unbelievable...
Venik
Chiggie Red Baron
<pav...@eunet.yu> writes
>In several non-US books, you can find info that one US B-52 WAS shot down by
>a MiG-21 during Linebacker 2, but if only one US book doesn't mention this
>story, it has to be a lie, right?
A non-US book - Osprey's "MiG-21" by Bill Gunston, a prolific aviation
writer - gives the following:
"Right at the end of the US involvement, MiG-21s were used to shadow B-
52s on their heavy night raids, and, it was said by the Americans, radio
back the proper detonating altitude for the SAMs. This seems nonsense,
because the V750VK SAM system is perfectly capable of working out target
heights for itself. What is more interesting is that, while a B-52D tail
gunner, on the evening of the first day (18 December 1972) claimed and
was credited with the destruction of a MiG-21 which was never recorded
as missing by the VPAAF, the VPAAF for its part credited Hero of the
People's Army Fam Tuan with the destruction of a B-52 which was never
admitted by the USAF!"
He gives both sides of the story, but doesn't definitely state anywhere
that one *was* shot down....
--
Graeme Carrott
Chairman, Air North, Newcastle upon Tyne
http://www.airnorth.demon.co.uk and new fax number: 0870-0560117
Currently Listening To: '13' - Blur
Currently Reading: 'Hurricanes over Murmansk' - Golley
Djordje Pavicevic
>If you and your cohorts in this newsgroup are soo easily
>duped into believing what YOU want to believe, then why
>can't you believe that there is a Buff driver in this
>newsgroup...or a former fighter pilot...or a current fighter
>pilot...or a "janitor at an RAF base?" It would seem to me
>that your belief system would tell you to trust what they
>say, simply because they say its true. I at least do.
Obviously you have some problem while reading or understanding it after
you've read it. I never asid I don't believe Buff's a B-52 pilot, or have I
called anyone a "janitor at an RAF base". You should definitely read the
name of the person who sends the subject before you categorize them all for
one.
And talking about cohorts...there are just too many US smart asses to make
this NG valid and even slightly objective place for any discussion.
>
>I at least didn't make things up to assist my denial process
>I was/am in. Venik, Mladen and the rest of the cohorts,
>really need to spend a few months in therapy. Your denial
>is getting to the point where you are believing everything
>except the truth.
>
And the truth is: US servicemen = Universum Supermen, right?
>That saying goes something like
>this: "Show me."
Sorry son, but God is little busy today, so you'll have to find you own way
out of the tunnel! Sorry... :-((
BUFDRVR
>doesn't _credit_ any BUFF losses to MiGs, and that you believe that to
>be true, which is another thing altogether.
True statement, however I believe the USAF version more than the VPAF version
because, based on what I've been trained, its more plausible. The Serbs on this
NG will have you believe most of us believe the US/NATO story over the Serb
story because of blind faith (obviously they don't know how sceptical the US
public is about any "official" data) that just isn't simply so. Could a VPAF
MiG-21 gotten a B-52 kill ? Sure, its not impossible, but a MiG-21 shooting
down a BUFF with one A-A missile while numerous MiG CAPS orbited nearby,
*without* being detected is highly unlikely.
Maiesm72
>And nevertheless Bible is still the most popular book. Unbelievable...
Tell us, please, that current events, at least in your mind, are events, not
beliefs!
You do know the difference, don't you?
Maybe not. Your claims re downed NATO aircraft fall under the heading of
beleifs, not facts.
May I suggest a way out for you? Alter your beliefs just a tad bit. Claim that
all of these alleged shoot downs (except the only two with evidence and
confirmation from both sides) were RPVs. Let's you off the hook on almost every
count except the total numbers.
Good luck,
Tom
Cheyenne
Ed Rasimus <thu...@rmii.com> wrote in message
news:37dfa958...@news.rmi.net...
> I've previously indicated in this newsgroup that I don't give a lot of
> credibility to the "confirmed" MiG kills awarded to the B-52 tail
> gunners and I give even less to the this claim of a MiG victory.
Also, as before, I can't let Ed's inability to lend credibility to an
official USAF confirmation go without comment. I know how difficult it must
be for a fighter pilot to believe that a bomber gunner could actually shoot
down an aircraft. Their ego must suffer mightily even to think of such a
thing! However, Ed, I AM glad we were both on the same side. Have a good
day.
Retired "TallTales" gunner
MtViewGuy
I really kind of doubt that a MiG-21 at that time could
shoot down a B-52. Mostly because the warhead of the K-
13 "Atoll" missile would barely damage a B-52, for starters.
Now, a SA-2 missile--with its MUCH, MUCH larger warhead--is
something else, though.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Cheyenne
Cheyenne <chey...@wolfenet.com> wrote in message
news:7rpmni$rdq$1...@sparky.wolfe.net...
Venik
>Venik wrote:
>
>>And nevertheless Bible is still the most popular book. Unbelievable...
>
>
>Tell us, please, that current events, at least in your mind, are events,
not
>beliefs!
>
I cannot say that they are either until I see the hard evidence ( I am too,
you know, would like to see the pictures). For now I am just saying that the
claims of NATO losses appear more logical and likely to me than NATO claims
of nearly no losses.
Venik
g_al...@hotmail.com
g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> BUFDRVR, there are several crew accounts stating that MiGs were flying
> formation with them, and had gotten there undetected. When I get
home,
> I'll be happy to post a quote. What is clear is that VPAF MiGs were
> able to get into the stream, and get into firing position, and that
they
> did launch Atolls at B-52s.
<snip>
Here we go, from the book "SAC," by Bill Yenne, and probably quoting
from "Linebacker II: A View from the Rock":
Approaching the Initial Point turn northwest to Hanoi, Capt. Roland
Scott remembered that the time, track, and target location were nearly
the same as his mission on the eighteenth [This was the 20th. Amazing
how we're still making the same mistakes, as this sort of thing was
supposedly a major factor in the shootdown of the F-117].
"Shortly after takeoff, we lost one engine and flew the mission on
seven. That wasn't too serious a problem in the G model, but I would
have felt better if it hadn't happened.
"On the southeast leg approaching the IP, my copilot stated he saw a
MiG-21 on the right wing of our aircraft. In mild disbelief, I
stretched to see out his window, and sure enough, a MiG-21 with lights
off was flying tight formation with us. I believe we could actually see
the pilot. The approach of the fighter had not been detected by onboard
systems. Shortly, two or three minutes, the copilot reported the MiG
had departed. Almost immediately I saw the same, or another, enemy
aircraft flying formation on the left side of us. After less than a
minute it departed.
Our sighs of relief were short-lived, and we quickly learned what the
MiGs had been up to. We visually detected missiles approaching from
our eleven and one o'clock positions. I was extremely worried that
missiles were also approaching from our rear that we could not see. The
EW reported no uplink or downlink signals with the missiles this mission
as were reported on the night of the eighteenth. However, these
missiles appeared to be a lot more accurate than on the eighteenth.
They seemed to readjust their track as I made small turns. I waited for
each to get as close as I dared, and then would make a hard, although
relatively small, maneuver in hopes of avoiding them . . ."
Guy
MCSTEVE34
>And nevertheless Bible is still the most popular book. Unbelievable...
>
>Venik
>
>
We all can't be godless communists. Come to think of it, there are very few of
those around anymore. I guess God is more popular then Lenin.
Stephen McCullough
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
Maiesm72
>I cannot say that they are either until I see the hard evidence ( I am too,
>you know, would like to see the pictures). For now I am just saying that the
>claims of NATO losses appear more logical and likely to me than NATO claims
>of nearly no losses.
Oh. OK. Now I understand. I think.
You would like to see the pictures that have not shown up, not a single one,
but you think that the claims of over 200 losses makes more sense than the two
that were actually lost and were identified with both photos and confirmation
by NATO whose claims can't be trusted.
I'm getting a headache.
Tom
Jussi Saari
>
> Hold it right there.
>
> I really kind of doubt that a MiG-21 at that time could
> shoot down a B-52. Mostly because the warhead of the K-
> 13 "Atoll" missile would barely damage a B-52, for starters.
>
> Now, a SA-2 missile--with its MUCH, MUCH larger warhead--is
> something else, though.
The SA-2 may have 10 times bigger warhead, but the major
difference is that the K-13 will most likely hit the target
directly, while the SA-2 will probably miss the target by
a clear margin and do it's damage with fragmentation. Also
the MiG-21 has 2-4 K-13s plus it's guns so if the first
hit doesn't do the job, the second one and a few 30mm bursts
should finish it quite nicely.
Jussi
g_al...@hotmail.com
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >To be more accurate, what you mean is that the U.S.
> >doesn't _credit_ any BUFF losses to MiGs, and that you believe that
to
> >be true, which is another thing altogether.
>
version
> because, based on what I've been trained, its more plausible. The
Serbs on this
> NG will have you believe most of us believe the US/NATO story over the
Serb
> story because of blind faith (obviously they don't know how sceptical
the US
> public is about any "official" data) that just isn't simply so. Could
a VPAF
> MiG-21 gotten a B-52 kill ? Sure, its not impossible, but a MiG-21
shooting
> down a BUFF with one A-A missile while numerous MiG CAPS orbited
nearby,
> *without* being detected is highly unlikely.
Presumably you posted this before I posted my follow up, which included
an American account of a MiG-21 approaching and actually able to fly
formation with a B-52 for several minutes, and remain undetected except
visually by the BUFF crew itself. Personally, I don't find it at all
unlikely. After all, if a MiG-25 can nail Scott Speicher because an
AWACS can't sort him out from all the other traffic, it's certainly
possible that a MiG-21 could do likewise. Admittedly, Speicher's flight
lead and maybe others had picked up the MiG-25 on radar, but there's a
world of difference between the E-3/F-18 radars and the
EC-121/F-4D/E's. Plus, I imagine the jamming density was a lot higher
(the BUFFs were doing their thing). Here's what the EA-6B crews had to
say:
"The interference on the ALQ-99 caused by the B-52 jamming was
tremendous. In the 2,900-3,200 MHz range the interference made
'Fansong' identification virtually impossible, completely saturating the
video analyser and blocking out all but the faintest hint of audio."
(From the 'Modern Combat Aircraft' series, No. 26, "A-6
Intruder/Prowler," by Thornborough and Davies.
Ed has previously told me that any attempt by him to lock onto a BUFF
caused immediate massive jamming in X-band, and IIRR, the BUFFs were
also being protected by chaff clouds in the target area (Ed, you still
up this freq?) Not that I think the MiGs would be using their radars if
they could help it. So, I don't find it at all hard to believe that a
MiG-21 was able to take a shot undetected. If they were able to
frequently do so in daytime (as they were), they sure could at night.
As to your other point, I transcribed the NVN account of the kill last
night with my comments about the various minor discrepancies, only to
have the server or my computer barf and leave me nothing to do but shut
down. Without retyping it all in, suffice it to say that Pham Tuan was
ordered to launch two IR Atolls, and did so.
Guy
Piotr Jezierski
Djordje Pavicevic napisał(a) w wiadomości: <>
>And the truth is: US servicemen = Universum Supermen, right?
and it makes u even worse then they are.. It is better to loose a war
against Supermen then against an idiot. In the former case u are almost a
Supermen, in the latter u are more stupid then an idiot.
lekomin inc
MtViewGuy
<Jussi...@mail.lut.fi> wrote:
> The SA-2 may have 10 times bigger warhead, but the
> major
> difference is that the K-13 will most likely hit the
> target
> directly, while the SA-2 will probably miss the target
> by
> a clear margin and do it's damage with fragmentation.
> Also
> the MiG-21 has 2-4 K-13s plus it's guns so if the first
> hit doesn't do the job, the second one and a few 30mm
> bursts
> should finish it quite nicely.
I still think the MiG-21 would have literally have to use
up its on-board ammo just to shoot down one B-52. For one
thing, I don't think the single-barrel GSh-23 cannon is as
effective as the three NR-30 cannon found on the MiG-17 and
MiG-19.
Which does explain why the NVAF tended to favor the MiG-17
and MiG-19--more "close in" firepower, for starters.
One thing that has kind of bothered me is the fact that
while the Chinese supplied F-6 (Chinese-built MiG-19's)
interceptors to the NVAF, they didn't seem to be used very
effectively during that war (at least from what I've read
in Air Enthusiast magazine). The MiG-19 was quite fast, had
good high-speed manueverability, and definitely had
excellent firepower with that triple NR-30 cannon setup.
The MiG-19 would have been the perfect B-52 interceptor,
but its seems everyone on this thread mentioned that B-52
pilots encountered mostly MiG-21's.
Raymond in Mt. View, CA
g_al...@hotmail.com
MtViewGuy <rchuang...@slip.net> wrote:
> In article <37E0B747...@mail.lut.fi>, Jussi Saari
> <Jussi...@mail.lut.fi> wrote:
>
> > The SA-2 may have 10 times bigger warhead, but the
> > major
> > difference is that the K-13 will most likely hit the
> > target
> > directly, while the SA-2 will probably miss the target
> > by
> > a clear margin and do it's damage with fragmentation.
> > Also
> > the MiG-21 has 2-4 K-13s plus it's guns so if the first
> > hit doesn't do the job, the second one and a few 30mm
> > bursts
> > should finish it quite nicely.
>
> I still think the MiG-21 would have literally have to use
> up its on-board ammo just to shoot down one B-52. For one
> thing, I don't think the single-barrel GSh-23 cannon is as
> effective as the three NR-30 cannon found on the MiG-17 and
> MiG-19.
I'm a big fan of the 3 NR-30s myself (not on the MiG-17; that had 1 N-37
and two NR-23s, or 3 NR-23s on the PFs), but there are other factors
involved. See below.
>
> Which does explain why the NVAF tended to favor the MiG-17
> and MiG-19--more "close in" firepower, for starters.
Actually, from 1967 on, the majority of kills, and by far the highest
kill ratio, were scored by the MiG-21s. The MiG-17 didn't score a
single kill in 1972, and had essentially been neutralized by U.S.
tactics in 1967. Usually it didn't carry missiles, so the U.S.A.F.
strike a/c (F-4s and F-105s) would just keep their speed up and run away
from it; the MiG-17's controls are essentially solid at high IAS, so it
can't make bat turns at those speeds, nor can it roll.
By 1972, the MiG-17s (923rd Fighter Regiment) were all based at Kep, to
be used against strikes (mostly navy) coming in from the Gulf of Tonkin.
The U.S.N. strike birds weren't as fast as the Air Force's, but the
U.S.N. F-4 pilots were a lot better at ACM than the average USAF pilot
was at the time, so the MiG-17s still weren't effective. The F-6s got a
few kills, but it was the MiG-21s of the 921st and 927th FR that did the
majority of the damage.
> One thing that has kind of bothered me is the fact that
> while the Chinese supplied F-6 (Chinese-built MiG-19's)
> interceptors to the NVAF, they didn't seem to be used very
> effectively during that war (at least from what I've read
> in Air Enthusiast magazine). The MiG-19 was quite fast, had
> good high-speed manueverability, and definitely had
> excellent firepower with that triple NR-30 cannon setup.
> The MiG-19 would have been the perfect B-52 interceptor,
> but its seems everyone on this thread mentioned that B-52
> pilots encountered mostly MiG-21's.
Reasons for the MiG-19s relative lack of use by the VPAF appear to be
because it was harder for pilots to fly, and it was much more
maintenance-intensive than either of the other two. For a third-world
air force that's only had jets for 8 years, and is short of trained
pilots and mechanics, that's a major factor. In addition, given the
VPAF tactics of one pass and haul ass, the MiG-21 is better suited
for that than the MiG-19. If Pakistani pilots had been flying those
F-6s, tactics (and results) probably would have been very different.
g_al...@hotmail.com
Reasons for the MiG-19's relative lack of use by the VPAF appear to be
BUFDRVR
>ordered to launch two IR Atolls, and did so.
I had heard that MiG-21's shadowed BUFF's passing altitude and airspeed info to
the SA-2's down below, so I guess with their radars off it was possible to
takeoff without being detected by either the BUFF or any other airborn radar
system. BUT 2 Atolls will not down a BUFF unless they miss the IR source and
hit the cockpit. I've flown all day on 7 engines, and just recently on 6. If 2
atolls managed to take out 2 pods (4 engines), the BUFF still shouldn't crash
as long as its got suffiecent airspeed. ALSO, even with his radar off, after
the MiG fires his first shot, the BUFF's TWR will let them know they've been
shot at, where upon they do like all good B-52 crews do and scream like hell
for help. At that point, the gunner should also be able to find him on his
radar and proceed to fire at the MiG. Such an engagement is impossible to keep
quite. For these reasons I just can't believe a MiG snuck up on a BUFF, popped
him with at least 2 atolls and left without some one else knowing.
KBoatri144
>BUT 2 Atolls will not down a BUFF unless they miss the IR source and
>hit the cockpit.
I beg to differ... Didn't an F-100 shoot down a B-52 in the late '50s or early
60's when the Super Saber accidentally launched one Sidewinder? Since the
Atoll is a Sidewinder clone, why couldn't an Atoll (or a pair of 'em) do the
same?
KB
BUFDRVR
>>hit the cockpit.
>
>I beg to differ... Didn't an F-100 shoot down a B-52 in the late '50s or
>early 60's when the Super Saber accidentally launched one Sidewinder?
7 April 1961. 53-0380 a B model from the 95th Bomb Wing was shot down by a NM
ANG F-100 with an AIM-9. The missiles IR seeker never went active and the AIM-9
hit *the cockpit*. Interestingly enough, I can't find out what happened to
either pilot. Had the AIM-9 gone after the engines like its supposed to, the
BUFF would have lived. I got this info from both Robert Dorr's book and a B-52
FTU training workbook(imagine that ?)
KBoatri144
Damn it. There you go doing research and using facts again. I'm not sure
that's allowed in this discussion.
KB
SteveM8597
>because it was harder for pilots to fly, and it was much more
>maintenance-intensive than either of the other two.
First off let me say that I was up over Hanoi with Ed every night of linebacker
but two towards the end of the campaign (flew days then) in F-4Es out of
Korat,. I flew escort and BARCAP for Wild Weasel, B-52s, Loran pathfinders,
and F-4 smart bombers
My (really hazy) recollection from intell brieings was that MiG-19 wasn't used
because it had a tendency to overheat during "hot" (engine running) ground
alerts and was also tough to maintain, used more fuel, and generally wasn't as
suited to the hit and run missile attacks that seemed to be favored by the
Vietnamese.
As to the -21 shooting down a BUFF, if it really happened, and we were aware
that it did, we would have changed our escort tactics. If the NVN tactic was
really successful, then it would have been put to more use and would have
become obvious to all of us. I do recall the briefings that MiGs had been
spotted shadowing BUFFs but to my recollection there was only a single incident
of this sort on one night that we were briefed about.
Not saying it didn't happen, but it seems pretty unlikely to me that we, the
escort crews, were never told about it and were never directed to change our
tactics accordingly.
Steve
g_al...@hotmail.com
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >Without retyping it all in, suffice it to say that Pham Tuan was
> >ordered to launch two IR Atolls, and did so.
>
> I had heard that MiG-21's shadowed BUFF's passing altitude and
airspeed info to
> the SA-2's down below, so I guess with their radars off it was
possible to
> takeoff without being detected by either the BUFF or any other airborn
radar
source and
> hit the cockpit. I've flown all day on 7 engines, and just recently on
6. If 2
> atolls managed to take out 2 pods (4 engines), the BUFF still
shouldn't crash
> as long as its got suffiecent airspeed. ALSO, even with his radar off,
after
> the MiG fires his first shot, the BUFF's TWR will let them know
they've been
> shot at, where upon they do like all good B-52 crews do and scream
like hell
> for help.
Er, a TWR for an IRM? This would require a MAWS, and except for the
F-111 which had an IR MAWS to the rear (and which was renowned for
giving constant false alarms, so most crews turned it off), AFAIK no
other Vietnam-era a/c had one.
At that point, the gunner should also be able to find him on
his
> radar and proceed to fire at the MiG.
Even with all the chaff and jamming around, the EWO calling out multiple
SAM up and downlinks, the a/c jinking, etc? People have missed far more
obvious things in combat.
Such an engagement is impossible
to keep
> quite. For these reasons I just can't believe a MiG snuck up on a
BUFF, popped
> him with at least 2 atolls and left without some one else knowing.
>
> BUFDRVR
Might as well transcribe the whole thing, so here goes:
"Pham Tuan departed Noi Bai [we called it Phuc Yen] on 27 December and
later landed at Yen Bai with the help of the GCU (Ground Control
Unit[s]) located at Moc Chau and Son La. At 2220 hours he took off from
Yen Bai and broke through the low, heavy cloud cover at 200-300 meters
only to find F-4s in his vicinity. He was informed of B-52s approaching
Moc Chau and was continually updated on the distance of bombers by the
Son La and Moc Chau GCUs. Pham Tuan jettisoned his fuel tank, increased
his speed, and climbed to 7000 meters. The radars were plotting the
route of the B-52s as well as the escorting F-4s behind them. When he
saw a yellow light in front of him he further increased his speed and
climbed to an altitude of 10000 meters where the B-52s were cruising.
"He informed the command: ' I have the target in sight, request order
for the attack.' The response of the GCU was: ' You have permission to
fire twice, then escape quickly.' The Americans were holding formation,
keeping the approximately 2-3 kilometer separation. Pham Tuan checked
his weapons and, when he reached the level of the third B-52, he
launched two heat-seeking missiles from a distance of 2 kilometers. He
saw large flames around the second B-52 when he broke sharply to the
left and descended to 2000 meters. The B-52s immediately dropped their
loads and turned towards home [more likely they'd pickled on their
target]. The crew of the B-52 believed struck by Tuan's missiles was
killed in action."
OK, some minor but inevitable discrepancies. He mentions a 2-3
kilometer separation, but it's not clear if he's referring to spacing
between a/c in a cell, spacing between cells, or what. He says he saw
'a yellow light.' This seems a bit odd, and I'm not sure whether
something got lost in translation, he saw an F-4 stroke its burner, or
something else. I would ordinarily consider that a strike against the
accuracy of the account, as I'd assume that the BUFFs would be operating
with all external lights off. However, we know that wasn't the case, as
we have Col. McCarthy's statement that it was SOP to keep the upper
rotating beacons (red) on unless somebody called MiGs (he was mission
commander on the 26th, and gave the order to turn them off for that
reason). Given SAMs, Shrikes and lots of other pyrotechnics going off,
there's no telling what he saw; even the color isn't really a problem,
as people often remember colors or other details wrong in stressful
situations (case in point, I've got an account by Robert Crisp, a tank
troop commander in the British Army, of a German attack on Sidi Rezegh
airfield in 1941. He tells of having a brigadier come up to his tank in
an open car with a flag flying, and tell him to follow him across the
airfield to stop the Germans advancing. Crisp says the flag was blue
and white, but that he subsequently read an account by someone else who
was also there stating it was red. The Brigadier concerned, Jock
Campbell, was awarded the VC for his actions that day in stopping the
attack; Crisp wound up with a DSO, for that and other actions).
Anyway, it's stated that the whole crew was killed. That's a mistake,
as one of the two a/c got back to Laos or Thailand and the crew were all
recovered, while the other B-52 lost had 2 killed and 4 PoW. Re your
comments about the lethality of the AA-2, it's clear from the account
that, assuming he'd done the damage, most likely he'd hit it in the
engines/wing and set the wing on fire, rather than destroying the a/c
immediately. Unfortunately, I don't have the times of our losses on
that night, so I can't tell which of the two a/c he might have hit.
None of this proves or disproves the claim: it's possible, that's all.
The VPADF-AF operated under very positive control, and was usually
pretty good about coordinating defenses, so if they knew a MiG was in
the air they probably wouldn't have been shooting SAMs into the same
area. OTOH, they themselves admit to scoring a fair number of own goals
by SAMs (not during Linebacker II), so it's not impossible that they had
SAMs and MiGs in the same area at the same time, confusing the issue.
One thing's for sure, even if he did shoot it down, if a SAM battery had
fired anywhere near the same area they would have claimed it as well.
Jussi Saari
>
> In article <37E0B747...@mail.lut.fi>, Jussi Saari
> <Jussi...@mail.lut.fi> wrote:
> > Also
> > the MiG-21 has 2-4 K-13s plus it's guns so if the first
> > hit doesn't do the job, the second one and a few 30mm
> > bursts
> > should finish it quite nicely.
>
> I still think the MiG-21 would have literally have to use
> up its on-board ammo just to shoot down one B-52. For one
> thing, I don't think the single-barrel GSh-23 cannon is as
> effective as the three NR-30 cannon found on the MiG-17 and
> MiG-19.
But the three NR-30s (or two in MiG-21F-13) would only give
2400rpm, or 1600rpm for the -21. The GSh-23L on the other hand
fires at 3400rpm, which means that in kg/s the 23mm puts out
shells at about the same rate as two or three NR-30s. And of
course the guns would only be needed for finishing up a target
that's already taken a K-13 or three...
As for the K-13s, wasn't there a case where a MiG-21 got a
single hit on a B-52, which then came very close to crashing as
a result?
Jussi
Stephen Harding
> As to the -21 shooting down a BUFF, if it really happened, and we were aware
> that it did, we would have changed our escort tactics. If the NVN tactic was
> really successful, then it would have been put to more use and would have
> become obvious to all of us. I do recall the briefings that MiGs had been
I recall reading a story about a VPAF attempted "ambush" of a B-52, perhaps
over Laos. I don't recall where I read this, perhaps this NG, or maybe
"Air and Space", and I'm sketchy on the details.
But it was a single MiG that got close enough to fire a couple missiles at
the bomber and skeedadle. The -52 took evasive maneuvers and both missiles
missed, but it was apparently a very close call.
I believe this occurred well before LBII, and I think during one of the NVN
bombing halts.
SMH
Ed Rasimus
>Presumably you posted this before I posted my follow up, which included
>an American account of a MiG-21 approaching and actually able to fly
>formation with a B-52 for several minutes, and remain undetected except
>visually by the BUFF crew itself.
I've seen that episode related before and I've always had deep
reservations about it. I won't categorically deny it, but (very large
BUT), let's consider the situation. It's night. There's been a run
through by chaff bombers at altitude laying wide fields of chaff that
persist for up to an hour. There are MiGCAP sorties all around with
and without Combat Tree capability. There's EC-121 and Red Crown early
warning radar sweeping the area. There's all sorts of electronic stuff
going on ranging from stand-off EB-66s to Navy platforms and
ALQ-87/101 self-protection pods and the not inconsiderable B-52 self
protection capability. The NVA air defense is in full response mode
with loads of 23/37/57/85 firing with and without radar control. The
SA-2 systems are all Weapons Free and active.
Now, you're trying to tell me that a MiG-21 gets airborne undetected,
gets GCI'd without our signal interception, runs his own radar to do a
no-lockon intercept, avoids engagement by any of the NV air defenses,
and completes the intercept undetected not only to a shooting
position, but to a close formation position???
Lots of people see lots of things in combat. Lots of things at night
are unseen. And lots of things in combat at night are misinterpreted.
I recall spending fifteen minutes one night North of Vinh trying to
rejoin on Venus.
>
>Ed has previously told me that any attempt by him to lock onto a BUFF
>caused immediate massive jamming in X-band, and IIRR, the BUFFs were
>also being protected by chaff clouds in the target area (Ed, you still
>up this freq?)
Still here. See above regarding general environment. As for BUFF EW
response, it wasn't usually massive X-band noise, but more
sophisticated range gate stealing and repeating. Lock on a BUFF cell
and within seconds your range and targets started wandering off the
scope or multiplying before your eyes. Best technique was to break
lock and move the antenna away then occasionally come back and sample
for a sweep or two to maintain station relative to the supported
bomber cell.
> Not that I think the MiGs would be using their radars if
>they could help it. So, I don't find it at all hard to believe that a
>MiG-21 was able to take a shot undetected. If they were able to
>frequently do so in daytime (as they were), they sure could at night.
My experience, which isn't all-encompassing, was that the MiG-21s of
1972 didn't have that much self-contained radar intercept capability.
Day tactics during LB were routinely to take off and climb out to the
north then reverse course at altitude and run a GCI controlled
intercept at M-1+ for a slashing attack on the largest segment of the
strike package.
We regularly got notified of "Blue bandits airborne...." as they
lifted off followed by regular updates of their progress during the
intercept profile. When I was in the eventual target area, the MiGs
usually showed up right when expected based on the Big Eye or Red
Crown calls. That makes it seem unlikely that the night intercept
would have gone unnoticed.
>
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Janne Kylliö
>Hold it right there.
>
>I really kind of doubt that a MiG-21 at that time could
>shoot down a B-52. Mostly because the warhead of the K-
>13 "Atoll" missile would barely damage a B-52, for starters.
well, there was a story in this NG few months back about an
ANG F-106 accidentally shooting down B-52 with AIM-9 missile.
This story was confirmed by several other people, so I don't
think bringing B-52 down is totally impossible for K-13.
--
jan...@cc.tut.fi
BUFDRVR
>F-111 which had an IR MAWS to the rear (and which was renowned for
>giving constant false alarms, so most crews turned it off), AFAIK no
>other Vietnam-era a/c had one.
I'm not sure weather Vietnam era BUFF's had it or not, I assumed they did since
ours is not a new system.
See Eds comments for my further doubts...
g_al...@hotmail.com
steve...@aol.com (SteveM8597) wrote:
> >Reasons for the MiG-19's relative lack of use by the VPAF appear to
be
> >because it was harder for pilots to fly, and it was much more
> >maintenance-intensive than either of the other two.
>
> First off let me say that I was up over Hanoi with Ed every night of
linebacker
> but two towards the end of the campaign (flew days then) in F-4Es out
of
> Korat,. I flew escort and BARCAP for Wild Weasel, B-52s, Loran
pathfinders,
> and F-4 smart bombers
<snip>
> As to the -21 shooting down a BUFF, if it really happened, and we
were aware
> that it did, we would have changed our escort tactics. If the NVN
tactic was
> really successful, then it would have been put to more use and would
have
> become obvious to all of us. I do recall the briefings that MiGs had
been
> spotted shadowing BUFFs but to my recollection there was only a single
incident
> of this sort on one night that we were briefed about.
You make two critical points: "If we were aware of it," and "it would
have been put to more use and would have become obvious to all of us."
There are many kills that we wrongly attributed (at least at first) or
which were lost to unknown causes (from our perspective). For
instance, the shootdown of Carbines 3 and 4 on April 30th, 1967
(Thorsness/Johnson, Abbott) was at first believed to be by SAMs. Only
after checking all sources was it realised that they were nailed by
MiG-21s that had done a perfect GCI-vectored bounce, with SAMs being
used for distraction. Because of VPAF records, we know who flew those
MiG-21s: Nguyen Ngoc Do (6), and Nguyen Van Coc (Their top ace. This
was his first kill, and he eventually was credited with 9 total, 7
manned of which we've been able to positively confirm and ID five, and 2
Firebees. He's now the CinC).
Still happens - take Speicher's shootdown in DS, which was at first
attributed to a SAM. In many cases, once we were able to analyse the
whole situation, we would correct ourselves, but in many cases the
necessary info would be lacking.
Second, Pham Tuan's Kill occurred (if it occurred) only on the 27th, the
last night there were any BUFF losses, and only two nights before LB II
ended. Even if you had been aware of the cause immediately, it would
have taken a day or two to change the tactics, and for the change to
filter down. It's not as if this was the first time the Vietnamese had
tried to intercept the BUFFs: Here's an unsuccessful mission on the
18th, also from Toperczer:
"The radar unit at Quang Binh reported heavy jamming on the 18th. At
1830 hours [N. Vietnamese time] the 45th radar Company reported B-52s
approaching and heading north. the report was echoed by the 16th Radar
Company at 1910 hours. By 1925 hours 3 F-111s had struck Noi Bai [Phuc
Yen]. Since the runway was still operational, Pham Tuan was ordered to
take off. when flying over Hoa Binh he saw a lot of chaff coming from
the F-4s as well as a considerable number of well-illuminated aircraft
heading for Hanoi. He increased power and tried to avoid the missiles
fired at him. Soon he noticed another formation of aircraft and
switched on his radar unit, but because of the jamming, he could not
track the targets. Pham Tuan was also spotted by the Americans and the
B-52s increased their speed. He returned to Noi Bai which was then
under attack from six B-52s. In the glow of the anti-aircraft fire he
saw an American plane in flames above him."
Gvien the time, it must have been one of the 3 B-52s lost that night
which he saw, as the other loss, an F-111, had gone down earlier. BTW,
if it seems like Pham Tuan is getting an awful lot of mention, aside
from being a hero for shooting down a BUFF (as the Vietnamese believe,
and they were under no illusions as to the difficulty), there just
weren't that many night-qualified fighter pilots available; I'd estimate
less than 20 at that time (in the first cadre in 1969, they trained
precisely 5 night-qualified pilots, and another 5 who were considered
"all-weather", which they apparently consider a different category).
> Not saying it didn't happen, but it seems pretty unlikely to me that
we, the
> escort crews, were never told about it and were never directed to
change our
> tactics accordingly.
See above. Again, I'm not saying that it did happen, the point is we
just don't know, and never will for sure.
g_al...@hotmail.com
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >Er, a TWR for an IRM? This would require a MAWS, and except for the
> >F-111 which had an IR MAWS to the rear (and which was renowned for
> >giving constant false alarms, so most crews turned it off), AFAIK no
> >other Vietnam-era a/c had one.
>
did since
> ours is not a new system.
>
> See Eds comments for my further doubts...
>
> BUFDRVR
Check Boyne, pg. 118, for a list of B-52 ECM at various periods, and
frequency coverage. Assuming the list is complete (probably not) the
only possible IR MAWS would be the ALR-18, as the ALR-20 and APR-25
cover radar bands. I have no info on the ALR-18, so can't say what it
did. Usually, an IR receiver would be coded AAR or AAS, but not
always (I believe the initial F-111 fit was the ALR-23, later replaced
by the AAR-34).
Guy
"Well, boys, this is it -- nuk-u-lar combat, toe-to-toe with the
Rooskies"
g_al...@hotmail.com
Jussi...@mail.lut.fi wrote:
> MtViewGuy wrote:
> >
> > In article <37E0B747...@mail.lut.fi>, Jussi Saari
> > <Jussi...@mail.lut.fi> wrote:
> > > Also
> > > the MiG-21 has 2-4 K-13s plus it's guns so if the first
> > > hit doesn't do the job, the second one and a few 30mm
> > > bursts
> > > should finish it quite nicely.
> >
> > I still think the MiG-21 would have literally have to use
> > up its on-board ammo just to shoot down one B-52. For one
> > thing, I don't think the single-barrel GSh-23 cannon is as
> > effective as the three NR-30 cannon found on the MiG-17 and
> > MiG-19.
>
> But the three NR-30s (or two in MiG-21F-13) would only give
> 2400rpm, or 1600rpm for the -21. The GSh-23L on the other hand
> fires at 3400rpm, which means that in kg/s the 23mm puts out
> shells at about the same rate as two or three NR-30s. And of
> course the guns would only be needed for finishing up a target
> that's already taken a K-13 or three...
True, but the NR-30s have a higher muzzle velocity (ca. 795 m/s vs.
700m/s), and the rounds are twice as heavy (14.7 oz. vs. 7.0 oz.). for
bombers, bigger is most definitely better. that's why the French and
British went to 30mm with the ADEN and DEFA, instead of 20mm like we
did (Colt M39).
Guy
g_al...@hotmail.com
Stephen Harding <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> SteveM8597 wrote:
>
> > As to the -21 shooting down a BUFF, if it really happened, and we
were aware
> > that it did, we would have changed our escort tactics. If the NVN
tactic was
> > really successful, then it would have been put to more use and would
have
> > become obvious to all of us. I do recall the briefings that MiGs
had been
>
perhaps
> over Laos. I don't recall where I read this, perhaps this NG, or
maybe
> "Air and Space", and I'm sketchy on the details.
>
> But it was a single MiG that got close enough to fire a couple
missiles at
> the bomber and skeedadle. The -52 took evasive maneuvers and both
missiles
> missed, but it was apparently a very close call.
>
> I believe this occurred well before LBII, and I think during one of
the NVN
> bombing halts.
>
> SMH
MiGs had indeed attempted to ambush B-52s bombing in Laos. From
"Clashes," [i.e. from U.S. official records], one attempt had been made
on October 4th, 1971, with the MiG getting to within 10 miles but not
firing.
Now, here's the VPAF version of the same event, via Toperczer:
"On 4th October 1971 the 921st FR sent Dinh Ton to Dong Hoi where he
scrambled at 1913 hours to engage an incoming group of B-52s. The
Americans used heavy jamming and, contrary to his training, Dinh Ton had
to fly without ground control [this was over Laos]. Although he found
two B-52s in front of him when he reached the battle area, he judged the
situation to be unsuitable for combat and broke off the engagement."
On November 20th, 1971 (almost certainly should read _October_ 20th) one
fired Atolls at a cell of BUFFs on November 20th, 1971. The MiG had
been detected, and the BUFFs were dumping flares like crazy, so the
missiles missed.
Here's the VPAF version:
"At 2000 hours on 20 October B-52s were reported 60 kilmeters to the
north of Xam Nua [Sam Neua]. Vu Dinh Rang was scrambled from Anh Son
airfield and, by 2046 hours, the distance between his MiG and the three
B052s was 100 kilometers. He dropped his fuel tank and climbed to
10,000 meters. At a distance of 15 kilometers Rang switched on his
radar unit and applied full throttle. He launched a missile at one of
the B-52s from a distance of 8 kilometers only to see a second bomber as
he turned away. He launched his second missile and broke off the
engagement. He landed at Anh Son at 2115 hours. The first B-52 was
damaged by his missile and had to make an emergency landing in Thailand.
Although it was not completely successful, this was the first engagement
with the B-52 bombers."
Assuming that the dates are correct (and assuming that we were
acknowledging that we were bombing in Laos at the time, and thus would
admit suffering damage there), we can deny the damage claim. OTOH, the
claim of damage and having to land in Thailand do coincide with the
first damage to a B-52, which occurred on November 5th, 1972. I've seen
enough cases where two or more missions separated by a considerable
period of time somehow got garbled together in historical records, that
it seems posible that might have happened here. More likely, though, is
that the pilot just made a mistake.
SteveM8597
>by SAMs (not during Linebacker II), so it's not impossible that they had
>SAMs and MiGs in the same area at the same time, confusing the issue.
>One thing's for sure, even if he did shoot it down, if a SAM battery had
>fired anywhere near the same area they would have claimed it as well.
I find it a little hard to believe that two out of three BUFFs in a formation
taking hits would not know what hit them. SA-2s are moderately obvious in the
daytime but real attention getters at night. It doens;t make sense to me that
#3 would not have time to call on guard that #2 just got hit and from what.
The "escorting F-4s behind them" would have spotted an airborne missle launch
as well. An airborne missle launch at night was a thing to behold. I flew
Weasel escort and SAM Hunter Killer, and when an AGM 45 was fired, the whole
sky within five miles sat up and took notice. The BUFF guys would invaribly
start making SAM calls until the Weasel driver called his launch.
Never knew escort flights to fly behind the BUFFs, FWIW. I'd also be sceptical
that two sequentially fired Atolls would score hits, and could discriminate
between two IR sources well enough to take out both targets.
Nope, sounds like a case of shootdowns by SAMs to me.
Steve
SteveM8597
> think bringing B-52 down is totally impossible for K-13.
I'm not sure anyone is ruling out the possibility. It is just unlikely. And
given the circumstances of the so-called shootdown, it becomes an inlikelhood
within an improbable scenario. In my the chances that it happened are about as
likely as a BUFF crew defecting to Hanoi duirng LBII.
g_al...@hotmail.com
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
> g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Presumably you posted this before I posted my follow up, which
included
> >an American account of a MiG-21 approaching and actually able to fly
> >formation with a B-52 for several minutes, and remain undetected
except
> >visually by the BUFF crew itself.
>
> I've seen that episode related before and I've always had deep
> reservations about it. I won't categorically deny it, but (very large
> BUT), let's consider the situation. It's night. There's been a run
> through by chaff bombers at altitude laying wide fields of chaff that
> persist for up to an hour. There are MiGCAP sorties all around with
> and without Combat Tree capability. There's EC-121 and Red Crown early
> warning radar sweeping the area. There's all sorts of electronic stuff
> going on ranging from stand-off EB-66s to Navy platforms and
> ALQ-87/101 self-protection pods and the not inconsiderable B-52 self
> protection capability. The NVA air defense is in full response mode
> with loads of 23/37/57/85 firing with and without radar control. The
> SA-2 systems are all Weapons Free and active.
From the account, it's clear that SA-2s weren't Weapons Free. Indeed,
that was supposedly the whole point, if U.S. evaluation of what the MiGs
were often doing, providing speed, course, and altitude data to the
ground, is correct.
>
> Now, you're trying to tell me that a MiG-21 gets airborne undetected,
> gets GCI'd without our signal interception, runs his own radar to do a
> no-lockon intercept, avoids engagement by any of the NV air defenses,
> and completes the intercept undetected not only to a shooting
> position, but to a close formation position???
I'm not trying to tell you anything, Ed, merely quoting a U.S. aircrew
who was there and witnessed it. As you say, they may have hallucinated
the whole thing. However, as to getting airborne undetected, the
account states that he had to work his way through F-4s, presumably
looking for him or at least in the vicinity of the airfield, shortly
after he got on top of the overcast. I don't doubt that we probably
heard some of the GCI, although considering that the EA-6Bs were
com-jamming the likely frequencies, that's not guaranteed. Of course,
the VPAF may have been using other frequencies, while continuing to
broadcast on their usual ones despite the jamming, just to make us think
the jamming was ineffective and/or that there was no need to go looking
for other freqs. That's a counter-measure that dates back to at least
WW2, when the Brits and Germans (probably others as well) used it.
It's also clear from U.S. reports that the VPAF was aware that we could
interrogate and read their IFF, as they'd begun to use it much more
sparingly or sometimes not at all, if few a/c were up (as would be the
case of a single-ship night intercept). That eliminates Combat Tree and
QRC-248 info.
> Lots of people see lots of things in combat. Lots of things at night
> are unseen. And lots of things in combat at night are misinterpreted.
> I recall spending fifteen minutes one night North of Vinh trying to
> rejoin on Venus.
Sure. The same comments apply to our attributing every B-52 lost, all
at night, to SAMs. As I said, the only way to know for sure would have
been by forensic examination of wreckage, and it's a bit late for that.
> > Not that I think the MiGs would be using their radars if
> >they could help it. So, I don't find it at all hard to believe that
a
> >MiG-21 was able to take a shot undetected. If they were able to
> >frequently do so in daytime (as they were), they sure could at night.
>
> My experience, which isn't all-encompassing, was that the MiG-21s of
> 1972 didn't have that much self-contained radar intercept capability.
> Day tactics during LB were routinely to take off and climb out to the
> north then reverse course at altitude and run a GCI controlled
> intercept at M-1+ for a slashing attack on the largest segment of the
> strike package.
As I've mentioned, the VPAF had very few night-qualified pilots,
who'd presumably be the best at using their own radars. BTW, I re-read
then-Col. McCarthy's account. In addition to having the upper rotating
beacon on, they also had a tail light on, presumably for
formation-keeping.
> We regularly got notified of "Blue bandits airborne...." as they
> lifted off followed by regular updates of their progress during the
> intercept profile. When I was in the eventual target area, the MiGs
> usually showed up right when expected based on the Big Eye or Red
> Crown calls. That makes it seem unlikely that the night intercept
> would have gone unnoticed.
See my comments above re "Strangling Parrot."
BUFDRVR
Our Tail Warning Receiver is nothing more than a doppler radar which lets us
know something is approaching our tail at a velocity greater than ours, its not
an IR receiver. The pilots -1 doesn't have its technical (ALR-???) designation,
just calls it the tail warning receiver.
SteveM8597
>enough cases where two or more missions separated by a considerable
>period of time somehow got garbled together in historical records, that
>it seems posible that might have happened here. More likely, though, is
>that the pilot just made a mistake.
>
>Guy
Guy, help me here. I recall that this thread started over a B-52 shootdown by
a MiG and from the context and title of the message, I assume you meant during
Linebacker II. No one is debating that MiGs didn't get close to BUFFs a time
or two in the South. and possibly could have inflicted damage, thoug I find it
a little unlikely, personally. Is your contenstion still that one got shot
down by a MiG during LBII or not as the title of this thread indicates?.
I am getting confused.
SteveM8597
>have taken a day or two to change the tactics, and for the change to
>filter down. It's not as if this was the first time the Vietnamese had
>tried to intercept the BUFFs
Point taken, Guy, and I appreciate that you have reasearched the subject well.
I do disagree with your comment above, though. Unlike earlier activity, we
were getting real time intel l and were working out tactics on the fly. In the
BUF escorts I flew our taskings were not much more than to defend a given
area from MiGs as the BUFFs came through. Formations, areas of coverage,
weapons and fire control employment, orbit points, altitides, etc were
something we worked out in the flight briefings with the rest of the escort
and Weasel force prior to takeoff. We heard a lot about the that the MiGs
might employ, but the subject of a MiG actually shooting down a BUFF in LBII
never came up, and "Blue Bandit" calls were few and far between those nights.
Steve
Charles Wagner
detection system. We did have some unusual oscillators installed in
some of the standard transmitters just for LB-II ops. Along with some
very careful system calibrations on the flight line with distinctive
markings applied to the ALR-20 screen.
Any EWOs' out there that can fill in the missing pieces?
Regards,
Chuck Wagner
g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <19990918011242...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
> buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> > >Er, a TWR for an IRM? This would require a MAWS, and except for the
> > >F-111 which had an IR MAWS to the rear (and which was renowned for
> > >giving constant false alarms, so most crews turned it off), AFAIK no
> > >other Vietnam-era a/c had one.
> >
> > I'm not sure weather Vietnam era BUFF's had it or not, I assumed they
> did since
> > ours is not a new system.
> >
> > See Eds comments for my further doubts...
> >
> > BUFDRVR
>
> Check Boyne, pg. 118, for a list of B-52 ECM at various periods, and
> frequency coverage. Assuming the list is complete (probably not) the
> only possible IR MAWS would be the ALR-18, as the ALR-20 and APR-25
> cover radar bands. I have no info on the ALR-18, so can't say what it
> did. Usually, an IR receiver would be coded AAR or AAS, but not
> always (I believe the initial F-111 fit was the ALR-23, later replaced
> by the AAR-34).
>
> Guy
>
> "Well, boys, this is it -- nuk-u-lar combat, toe-to-toe with the
> Rooskies"
>
David Lentz
BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >Usually, an IR receiver would be coded AAR or AAS,
>
> Our Tail Warning Receiver is nothing more than a doppler radar which lets us
> know something is approaching our tail at a velocity greater than ours, its not
> an IR receiver. The pilots -1 doesn't have its technical (ALR-???) designation,
> just calls it the tail warning receiver.
>
> BUFDRVR
Some persons think I am a wise ass.
The BUFF Tail Warning receiver does have an AN designation, is is
the AN/ALQ-153 (1).
By the way, I am.
David
1. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-153.htm
Steve Hix
> MtViewGuy <rchuang...@slip.net> wrote:
> >Hold it right there.
> >
> >I really kind of doubt that a MiG-21 at that time could
> >shoot down a B-52. Mostly because the warhead of the K-
> >13 "Atoll" missile would barely damage a B-52, for starters.
>
> well, there was a story in this NG few months back about an
> ANG F-106 accidentally shooting down B-52 with AIM-9 missile.
>
> This story was confirmed by several other people, so I don't
> think bringing B-52 down is totally impossible for K-13.
If you read the later post that described the downing in
detail, it involved the Sidewinder hitting the cockpit,
not an engine, etc.
g_al...@hotmail.com
steve...@aol.com (SteveM8597) wrote:
> >OTOH, they themselves admit to scoring a fair number of own goals
> >by SAMs (not during Linebacker II), so it's not impossible that they
had
> >SAMs and MiGs in the same area at the same time, confusing the issue.
> >One thing's for sure, even if he did shoot it down, if a SAM battery
had
> >fired anywhere near the same area they would have claimed it as well.
>
formation
> taking hits would not know what hit them. SA-2s are moderately
obvious in the
> daytime but real attention getters at night. It doens;t make sense to
me that
> #3 would not have time to call on guard that #2 just got hit and from
what.
> The "escorting F-4s behind them" would have spotted an airborne missle
launch
> as well. An airborne missle launch at night was a thing to behold. I
flew
> Weasel escort and SAM Hunter Killer, and when an AGM 45 was fired, the
whole
> sky within five miles sat up and took notice. The BUFF guys would
invaribly
> start making SAM calls until the Weasel driver called his launch.
>
> Never knew escort flights to fly behind the BUFFs, FWIW. I'd also be
sceptical
> that two sequentially fired Atolls would score hits, and could
discriminate
> between two IR sources well enough to take out both targets.
>
> Nope, sounds like a case of shootdowns by SAMs to me.
>
> Steve
As you say, SAMs are quite obvious at night, _while their motors are
burning_. Once that's done, there's not much to see until they go off.
As to whether two sequentially-fired ATOLLS could score hits on the
same target, our AIM-9Bs managed it more than a few times.
side...@my-deja.com
or gaurd during LBII ops.
It is incomprehensible that there are human beings still fighting the
same battles. It's over - move on.
Det 37 LID
Combat Skyspot
Udorn Thailand
BUFDRVR
I knew it did, unfortunately us non-EW types usually refer to it as the tail
warning receiver.
>is the AN/ALQ-153
Thank you, thats it, once again refered to by non-EW's as "the 153"
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> wrote:
>
>
>BUFDRVR wrote:
>>
>> >Usually, an IR receiver would be coded AAR or AAS,
>>
>> Our Tail Warning Receiver is nothing more than a doppler radar which lets us
>> know something is approaching our tail at a velocity greater than ours, its not
>> an IR receiver. The pilots -1 doesn't have its technical (ALR-???) designation,
>> just calls it the tail warning receiver.
>>
>> BUFDRVR
>
>Some persons think I am a wise ass.
>
>The BUFF Tail Warning receiver does have an AN designation, is is
>the AN/ALQ-153 (1).
I thought all ALQs were jammers. ( and yes, the smart ones receive.)
>1. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-153.htm
Just a note: FAS is not infallible. ( Don't know if they're correct
or not in this case, but they have presented a couple of whoppers.)
- John T.
Paul J. Adam
Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> writes
>I thought all ALQs were jammers. ( and yes, the smart ones receive.)
I think the 'Q' is EM countermeasure, not just jammer (could be
wrong) but I am pretty sure there's also the ALQ-156 missile approach
warning (also a radar-based system).
Maybe the AAR-42 (?) and other IR/UV type passive optical warners
get one designation and the active radar warners get ALQ- numbers?
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
David Lentz
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
<snip>
> >The BUFF Tail Warning receiver does have an AN designation, is is
> >the AN/ALQ-153 (1).
>
> I thought all ALQs were jammers. ( and yes, the smart ones receive.)
>
> >1. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-153.htm
>
> Just a note: FAS is not infallible. ( Don't know if they're correct
> or not in this case, but they have presented a couple of whoppers.)
>
> - John T.
Thanks for the heads up. I also like the Air Force Fact
Sheets(1), but they don't seem as detailed as FAS.
David
g_al...@hotmail.com
the tail
> warning receiver.
>
> >is the AN/ALQ-153
>
> Thank you, thats it, once again refered to by non-EW's as "the 153"
>
> BUFDRVR
Ok, checking Boyne (pg. 118), he shows the ALQ-153 being fitted to G/Hs
from 1970 or so on. It's possible that the Ds also got it at some
point. Whether they did or didn't, the question then becomes, given
all the chaff, jamming etc. and the small size of an Atoll, would or
could the ALQ-153 even detect the missile (assuming that it's a),
present, and b), working)?
Guy
g_al...@hotmail.com
side...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> It is incomprehensible that there are human beings still fighting the
> same battles. It's over - move on.
>
> Det 37 LID
> Combat Skyspot
> Udorn Thailand
I confess to being baffled by comments like this. This is the
REC.aviation.military newsgroup: we discuss these things because it
amuses us to do so. If _you_ don't find the discussion amusing, is
there someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read the
thread and reply to it? Assuming that's not the case and you're
reading the newsgroup voluntarily, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty
bypassing the thread, just as I do with the vast majority of the
traffic in the newsgroup.
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <37e453df...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>, Dweezil
> Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> writes
>
> wrong) but I am pretty sure there's also the ALQ-156 missile approach
> warning (also a radar-based system).
>
> Maybe the AAR-42 (?) and other IR/UV type passive optical warners
> get one designation and the active radar warners get ALQ- numbers?
'Q' stands for multipurpose. If it not only detects but tracks,
that would qualify, as in the alternative designation sometimes used for
fighter radars, APQ rather than APG. But it does beg the question.
BUFDRVR
>wrong) but I am pretty sure there's also the ALQ-156 missile approach
>warning (also a radar-based system).
>Maybe the AAR-42 (?) and other IR/UV type passive optical warners
>get one designation and the active radar warners get ALQ- numbers?
I don't know why the 153 is an ALQ and not an ALR. I'll admit, I'm a little
embarassed that I can't spout ECM equipment details off my head, but I know our
TWR is just that, a receiver. Often refered to by EW's as being tied in to the;
"time to die meter".
Ed Rasimus
>MiGs had indeed attempted to ambush B-52s bombing in Laos. From
>"Clashes," [i.e. from U.S. official records], one attempt had been made
>on October 4th, 1971, with the MiG getting to within 10 miles but not
>firing.
>
>Now, here's the VPAF version of the same event, via Toperczer:
>
>"On 4th October 1971 the 921st FR sent Dinh Ton to Dong Hoi where he
>scrambled at 1913 hours to engage an incoming group of B-52s. .......
Here's where I have a problem with this particular story. The idea of
a MiG-21 being able to operate out of Dong Hoi simply doesn't fit in
my experience.
Dong Hoi is located just a mile or two inland off the beach in Route
Pack I. The runway was roughly parallel to the coast line and only
about 4000 feet long. It was used during WW II and the French war by
propeller driven conventional aircraft. I dropped 2x3000 pound M-118s
nearby on my first combat mission in May of 1966. At that time the
runway was cratered from end to end and there were no usable
structures remaining on the airfield.
When I returned to Korat in June of 1972, my first F-4E combat sortie
took me again to Pack I, to a "military storage area" near Dong Hoi,
and, not surprisingly, the same runway was there, still unusable and
still with the craters spread evenly down the length. And, there were
no usable structures around the airfield.
Now, I can believe that airfields such as Yen Bai were repaired and
used for dispersal during the period from late 1968 to April 1972 when
bombing of NVN was halted. I delivered 4xCBU-52 personally on the Yen
Bai runway during Linebacker II and will readily admit that the runway
was near 8000 feet long, 200 feet wide and very servicable--as well as
being much improved over the condition in 1966.
I can't however see any way that a MiG-21 could have operated off of
Dong Hoi at anytime during the war.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Ed Rasimus
>
>As you say, SAMs are quite obvious at night, _while their motors are
>burning_. Once that's done, there's not much to see until they go off.
In the case of the SA-2, it's a two stage process. The booster, which
displays a very prominent orange smoke, drops off shortly after
launch. During the booster burn the missile was unguided (that
accounts for the min range hole in the coverage area and the reason
why SA-2s are often arrayed in mutual support positions).
After booster drop-off, the sustainer burns bright white, and remains
burning throughout the guidance phase and endgame. Once the sustainer
burns out, the missile will self-destruct within about five seconds.
In the case of an SA-2 there is almost always "much to see" all the
way through detonation.
I recall one night during Linebacker (I), sitting at FL 240 in a
MiGCAP orbit supporting B-52 strikes near Vinh. A missile came out of
the North end of Mu Gia pass (where no known sites were listed on the
ORBAT). I turned into the threat, started down, watched the missile
sustainer flame follow me, tracking. Then there was burn-out and with
no visual cues, I simply lit the burners and started a huge barrel
roll. The back-seater, who had woken up by that time asked me what was
going on. I told him if we were still alive in ten seconds the threat
would be over.
Charles Wagner
opposed to another possibly more meaningful designation - I do not know.
But a legitimate designation nonetheless.
Regards,
Chuck Wagner
PS
SLR-2; Shipborne countermeasures receiver system. Frequency range (very
wide) split between two operating positions each with own scope,
control, power supply and half the total frequency range.
BLR-1; Underwater countermeasures receiver system. Same equipment as
SLR-2 except that it was one operating position controlling the total
frequency range. Used in submarines. For those that know - the BLR-1
was the equivalent of the APR-9 (60 Hz power for BLR/SLR and 400 Hz for
the APR).
Charles Wagner
Wagner
g_al...@hotmail.com
Here's some of what the book (Toperczer) has to say about airfield work
in the 1969-71 period:
"The airfields at Hoa Lac, Mieu Mon, Tho Xuan [I believe this was
the airfield known as Bai Thuong to us], Vinh, Dong Hoi, and Anh Son
[probably Quan Lang] were repaired and expanded with the help of
civilians in 1969 and 1970. New landing strips were constructed in the
villages of Cam Thuy, Gat, and Phu Quy." [Note: Gat was the airbase
through which the two MiG-17s that bombed and damaged the USS Oklahoma
City and USS Higbee staged. We were apparently completely unaware of
its existence until several days after the attack].
As I'm sure Ed will agree, the North Vietnamese were experts at
camouflage and deception; they'd had lots of practice, and strong
incentive. They were apparently able to operate during LB 2 from a base
which we were unaware of, Cam Thuy, after the main bases at Noi Bai,
Kep, Yen Bai and Gia Lam were attacked and mostly put out of action. As
best I can tell, eyeballing it from a map in Toperczer and
cross-referencing it to a photo of a NVN flight chart in Boyne, Cam Thuy
is located about 2015/10530, and isn't shown on the chart (which
belonged to a LB 2 BUFF pilot).
If the NVN wanted Dong Hoi to appear to be unrepaired and the same
length as it had been before the bombing halt, I imagine they could do
so (after all, our pilots were fooled by rolls of black plastic sheeting
used as roads and rivers, and wood and clear plastic tank and a/c decoys
in Kosovo. The Argentines supposedly painted a bomb crater on the
runway at Pt. Stanley airfield, after they'd repaired the real crater).
From several thousand feet up, speeds of 450+, with people shooting at
you, camo doesn't have to be all that high-quality to be effective.
g_al...@hotmail.com
> >burning_. Once that's done, there's not much to see until they go
off.
>
> In the case of the SA-2, it's a two stage process. The booster, which
> displays a very prominent orange smoke, drops off shortly after
> launch. During the booster burn the missile was unguided (that
> accounts for the min range hole in the coverage area and the reason
> why SA-2s are often arrayed in mutual support positions).
>
> After booster drop-off, the sustainer burns bright white, and remains
> burning throughout the guidance phase and endgame. Once the sustainer
> burns out, the missile will self-destruct within about five seconds.
> In the case of an SA-2 there is almost always "much to see" all the
> way through detonation.
Alright, let's use your figure of 5 seconds after burnout until
auto-destruct (you sure you're not confusing that time with something
else? ISTR that there's an auto-destruct after six seconds without
guidance, but don't recall anything along the lines of what you say.
I've got a source I can check, so let me get back to you).
Anyway, at BUFF heights, SA-2 sustainer burnout's at Mach 3+, or roughly
2-3 miles of travel in those 5 seconds. Quite a distance for it to go
with nothing visible.
> I recall one night during Linebacker (I), sitting at FL 240 in a
> MiGCAP orbit supporting B-52 strikes near Vinh. A missile came out of
> the North end of Mu Gia pass (where no known sites were listed on the
> ORBAT). I turned into the threat, started down, watched the missile
> sustainer flame follow me, tracking. Then there was burn-out and with
> no visual cues, I simply lit the burners and started a huge barrel
> roll. The back-seater, who had woken up by that time asked me what was
> going on. I told him if we were still alive in ten seconds the threat
> would be over.
Congratulations on your last 27 years of life:-) Did it go off, or did
it just disappear?
TEW
of
>those around anymore. I guess God is more popular then Lenin.
I thought John Lenin said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus?
Ed Rasimus
>In article <37e4f6ca....@news.rmi.net>,
> thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>> Here's where I have a problem with this particular story. The idea of
>> a MiG-21 being able to operate out of Dong Hoi simply doesn't fit in
>> my experience.
>> When I returned to Korat in June of 1972, my first F-4E combat sortie
>> took me again to Pack I, to a "military storage area" near Dong Hoi,
>> and, not surprisingly, the same runway was there, still unusable and
>> still with the craters spread evenly down the length. And, there were
>> no usable structures around the airfield.
>>
>> I can't however see any way that a MiG-21 could have operated off of
>> Dong Hoi at anytime during the war.
>>
>
>Here's some of what the book (Toperczer) has to say about airfield work
>in the 1969-71 period:
>
>"The airfields at Hoa Lac, Mieu Mon, Tho Xuan [I believe this was
>the airfield known as Bai Thuong to us], Vinh, Dong Hoi, and Anh Son
>[probably Quan Lang] were repaired and expanded with the help of
>civilians in 1969 and 1970. New landing strips were constructed in the
>villages of Cam Thuy, Gat, and Phu Quy." [Note: Gat was the airbase
>through which the two MiG-17s that bombed and damaged the USS Oklahoma
>City and USS Higbee staged. We were apparently completely unaware of
>its existence until several days after the attack].
Some of those names ring a bell and some don't. I'm familiar with Hoa
Lac and Bai Thuong as well as Vinh. Most are in the Red River delta
and not all the way down the panhandle. Even Vinh is respectfully
north of the DMZ.
>
>As I'm sure Ed will agree, the North Vietnamese were experts at
>camouflage and deception; they'd had lots of practice, and strong
>incentive. They were apparently able to operate during LB 2 from a base
>which we were unaware of, Cam Thuy, after the main bases at Noi Bai,
>Kep, Yen Bai and Gia Lam were attacked and mostly put out of action.
The airfields were bombed during LB II, and we used them as jettison
targets for unexpended CBU-52 on Hunter-Killer sorties. The runways
were (apparently) of poured concrete rather than rolled asphalt, and
quite durable. The supporting taxiways, revetments, support structures
were very well camouflaged.
>
>If the NVN wanted Dong Hoi to appear to be unrepaired and the same
>length as it had been before the bombing halt, I imagine they could do
>so (after all, our pilots were fooled by rolls of black plastic sheeting
>used as roads and rivers, and wood and clear plastic tank and a/c decoys
>in Kosovo. The Argentines supposedly painted a bomb crater on the
>runway at Pt. Stanley airfield, after they'd repaired the real crater).
>From several thousand feet up, speeds of 450+, with people shooting at
>you, camo doesn't have to be all that high-quality to be effective.
We weren't as smart as the Kosova war aircrews in those days. Trust me
when I say that my view of Dong Hoi airfield in 1966 and 1972/73 was
NOT from several thousand feet up. The examination was quite detailed
and extremely proximate. There was also considerable difference in
surroundings between the northern Route Packs and Dong Hoi in RP I.
No buildings, no vegetation, short runway, large craters, suitable
(maybe) for STOL operations. Also well under the radar coverage from
below the DMZ.
Ed Rasimus
>In article <37e5fa23....@news.rmi.net>,
> thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>> g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> After booster drop-off, the sustainer burns bright white, and remains
>> burning throughout the guidance phase and endgame. Once the sustainer
>> burns out, the missile will self-destruct within about five seconds.
>> In the case of an SA-2 there is almost always "much to see" all the
>> way through detonation.
>
>Alright, let's use your figure of 5 seconds after burnout until
>auto-destruct (you sure you're not confusing that time with something
>else? ISTR that there's an auto-destruct after six seconds without
>guidance, but don't recall anything along the lines of what you say.
>I've got a source I can check, so let me get back to you).
Five seconds or six--it's about the same to me. I'll be happy to hear
from your reference whether the auto-destruct is a function of
sustainer burnout or guidance termination. I guess the essential
question is whether guidance continues in the ballistic phase. (In the
low altitude environment where my encounters took place it was seldom
an issue--the sustainer was always still cooking.)
>
>
>Congratulations on your last 27 years of life:-) Did it go off, or did
>it just disappear?
It just disappeared. I always joked that the SA-2 crews down in RP
I/II didn't get the quality supplies. Probably lots of damage to
circuit boards, etc during a transit down the panhandle over jungle
trails.
rpay...@wans.net
>'Q' stands for multipurpose. If it not only detects but tracks,
>that would qualify, as in the alternative designation sometimes used for
>fighter radars, APQ rather than APG. But it does beg the question.
When the ALQ-153 first went on the B-52H at K.I. Sawyer around 1980 it
was rumored that it would be tied in to automatically drop flares and
chaff. Whether it ended up that way I don't know. So maybe Q - Special
or Combination of Purposes due to detecting and then providing
countermeasures automatically.
rpay...@wans.net
>Ok, checking Boyne (pg. 118), he shows the ALQ-153 being fitted to G/Hs
>from 1970 or so on. It's possible that the Ds also got it at some
>point.
The H models at K.I. Sawyer didn't get the ALQ-153 until around 1980.
The wiring and racks went in roughly a year before equipment and
mockup arrived. If anyone has pictures of a B-52 with bulges up on
the tail before about 1978 it would be interesting to know the model
and date...
rpay...@wans.net
>I don't know why the 153 is an ALQ and not an ALR. I'll admit, I'm a little
>embarassed that I can't spout ECM equipment details off my head, but I know our
>TWR is just that, a receiver. Often refered to by EW's as being tied in to the;
>"time to die meter".
What has happened to the ECM shop these days? They are suppose to
supply you with road flares and a basket of tinfoil strips to throw
out the window when the alarm goes off...
Dweezil Dwarftosser
The way I heard it, BUFFs throw lightning bolts, extra crew members,
and have even been known to chuck out the salad bar at missile
launch..
- John T.
g_al...@hotmail.com
> > thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
> >> Here's where I have a problem with this particular story. The idea
of
> >> a MiG-21 being able to operate out of Dong Hoi simply doesn't fit
in
> >> my experience.
> >Here's some of what the book (Toperczer) has to say about airfield
work
> >in the 1969-71 period:
> >
> >"The airfields at Hoa Lac, Mieu Mon, Tho Xuan [I believe this was
> >the airfield known as Bai Thuong to us], Vinh, Dong Hoi, and Anh Son
> >[probably Quan Lang] were repaired and expanded with the help of
> >civilians in 1969 and 1970. New landing strips were constructed in
the
> >villages of Cam Thuy, Gat, and Phu Quy." [Note: Gat was the airbase
> >through which the two MiG-17s that bombed and damaged the USS
Oklahoma
> >City and USS Higbee staged. We were apparently completely unaware of
> >its existence until several days after the attack].
>
> Some of those names ring a bell and some don't. I'm familiar with Hoa
> Lac and Bai Thuong as well as Vinh. Most are in the Red River delta
> and not all the way down the panhandle. Even Vinh is respectfully
> north of the DMZ.
I previously gave the (eye-balled) coordinates of Cam Thuy: Gat's around
1750/10610 (not shown on U.S. map; north and a bit west of Dong Hoi);
Phu Quy's one of the group of three airfields NW of Vinh well inland,
and is probably about 1905/10510. Quan Lang (Anh Son? The only one of
the three airfields NW of Vinh shown on U.S. maps) is located on U.S.
maps at 1859/10503. Mieu Mon (not shown on U.S. maps) is probably about
2045/10515.
Fair enough. However, since the MiG-21 took off from there in October
'71, during the bombing halt and before you saw it during LB I, we'll
have to assume that the runway was still intact at that time.
Re-reading the account in Toperczer, it's not clear that the runway at
Dong Hoi was extended, as he's lumping in several airfields together
under the category of "repaired and expanded." That could just mean
more fuel, ammo, and revetments.
I suppose it's possible that the MiGs may have used RATOG gear to get
off, but unless you can come up with a plausible reason for them to lie
about what airbase they took off from on this occasion, I see no reason
not to accept that they took off from Dong Hoi. Describing several
other attempts to shoot down BUFFs over Laos in the same period, they
describe the MiG-21s taking off from Vinh or Anh Son, so it's not as if
they're trying to emphasize Dong Hoi to the exclusion of others.
Besides, what would be the point? They're quite candid about admitting
when we'd made airfields unusable.
BUFDRVR
>and have even been known to chuck out the salad bar at missile
>launch..
whatever it takes....
Evil Gilby
he was a tail gunner in the b-52 and flew 486 missions over the north..if
anyone knows he would? he resides in rome n.y. and is online
Ed Rasimus
I sincerely submit that he may have flown 485 combat missions in
B-52s, but I doubt that he logged more than 20 over North Vietnam.
Linebacker II only lasted eleven days.
Jeff Crowell
Evil Gilby wrote:
>>gentlemen why not ask david troutman?
>>he was a tail gunner in the b-52 and flew 486 missions over the north..if
>>anyone knows he would? he resides in rome n.y. and is online
Ed Rasimus wrote:
>I sincerely submit that he may have flown 485 combat missions in
>B-52s, but I doubt that he logged more than 20 over North Vietnam.
>Linebacker II only lasted eleven days.
Damn! Now THAT's an ops tempo!
Jeff