Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
F-16 dodging 6 Iraqi SAM launches >

F-16 dodging 6 Iraqi SAM launches

Search
Notices
Military Military Aviation

F-16 dodging 6 Iraqi SAM launches

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-07-2012, 05:50 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
If you can maintain speed and G, why e-jett when you can unload on target instead? Yeah, if a wingman jettisons he's done. Barring him being tumbleweed he better still be maintaining mutual support and not running for the border.
By "done for the day", I wasn't implying he would leave the formation or run for the border. He's just "done" with bombing (obviously).

From what I could see on the tape, that guy was barely maintaining G or speed. The only time he got over 400 knots was in the delivery dive. Most of his shucking and jiving occurred after weapons release, so at least he was rid of those. I hope he got rid of his tanks shortly after he dropped his bombs. I seriously doubt his jet would have had much "orthogonal roll" in it had he chose to keep 4000 lbs of bombs on it hoping to shake a SAM and then, if he survives, unload them on the target.

What is the typical jett criteria for a bomber? I'm not suggesting it should happen on every spike or even every launch. I'm surprised that actually seeing multiple SAMs launched AT YOU, with correlated spikes and a high potential for a last ditch would still leave some level of wiggle room on the jett decision. You're really saying that you can predict whether your bomb laden jet can generate enough movement in a last ditch maneuver as you watch the missiles come and jett is still just an option? Big gamble, IMO.

I had a couple of SA-3s shot at me and fortunately I didn't need the last ditch. Went to the beam with chaff, picked them up visually, full AB, dumped the external tanks (all 3) and started for more knots. Fortunately, I lost the spike and they went ballistic. I'm pretty sure if I had bombs instead of fuel tanks my decision process would have been the same.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 05:52 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Rawhide16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 339
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
If you can maintain speed and G, why e-jett when you can unload on target instead? Yeah, if a wingman jettisons he's done. Barring him being tumbleweed he better still be maintaining mutual support and not running for the border.
You can't maintain G while defending with the bombs. The bombs limit you to 5.5 G's. I absolutely want more than that available if I'm going into a last ditch. I always briefed a jettison plan which usually consisted of going to the merge (dependent on the threat), battle damage and unable to maintain a tactical airspeed, or last ditch.
Rawhide16 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 05:59 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,198
Default

Originally Posted by aviator77 View Post
Yes, if you are no kidding doing a "last ditch" you would jettison everything. "Jettison", for Viper guys at least, usually implies hitting the EMER JETT button which is going to dump anything that is carted (ie tanks, bombs, HARMS...not A-A missiles). That call is usually reserved for a defensive maneuver or going to the merge with a highly maneuverable adversary. If you want someone to drop tanks only you would direct them to "SEL JETT the tanks" (selective jettison).

I couldn't understand the comm and how it was worded. It could've been an advisory call that someone had jettisoned.
Or as we like to say "don't die with bombs on your jet."
Grumble is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 06:28 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
nwaf16dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Default

Got the whole story on this mission from Stroke 8 a couple years after. If I remember correctly this was the first big daylight trip to baghdad. The "root cause" of all the flailing was that the mission planners didn't consider the winds in their plan. IP to target was planned against a crazy headwind, slowing their ground speed way down, doubling their time in the heart of the threat and making them slow-moving grapes for the SAMs. At the time (Pre-gulf war) almost all of our training was low altitude stuff where winds weren't much of a factor. I think there were at least two aircraft lost that day. Lesson learned.

Follow on to the story. There were some real hero's driving the tankers that day. All that burner time dodging missiles had several guys very low on fuel. The tankers came way north from their safe areas to get them. Stroke 8 hit the tanker boom with about 600 lbs of gas, well north of good guy land. For you non-viper guys, that is just a very few minutes from running out of gas.
nwaf16dude is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:03 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: retired
Posts: 992
Default

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude View Post

Follow on to the story. There were some real hero's driving the tankers that day. All that burner time dodging missiles had several guys very low on fuel. The tankers came way north from their safe areas to get them. Stroke 8 hit the tanker boom with about 600 lbs of gas, well north of good guy land. For you non-viper guys, that is just a very few minutes from running out of gas.
Anything similar to the "Pardo Push" happen in that war?
Dougdrvr is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:03 AM
  #26  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Not that I've ever heard, but post-war (from 2003-2006; in the No-Fly Zones), when I was flying with F-16 wingmen, I offered (in the brief) to push them if they lost their engine. (We flew F-4G/F-4G in the South, but F-4G/F-16C in the North).

I figured that was better than the alternative.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 11:51 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
Not that I've ever heard, but post-war (from 2003-2006; in the No-Fly Zones), when I was flying with F-16 wingmen, I offered (in the brief) to push them if they lost their engine. (We flew F-4G/F-4G in the South, but F-4G/F-16C in the North).

I figured that was better than the alternative.
So..... are we talking radome up the nozzle? Or something a little more creative and less invasive involving the tailhook? What was your plan?
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 01:01 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
nwaf16dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
Not that I've ever heard, but post-war (from 2003-2006; in the No-Fly Zones), when I was flying with F-16 wingmen, I offered (in the brief) to push them if they lost their engine. (We flew F-4G/F-4G in the South, but F-4G/F-16C in the North).

I figured that was better than the alternative.
Amazingly enough, in all the thousands of viper hours in Operations Desert Storm, Southern & Northern Watch, and Iraqi freedom, there was only one case (maybe two, one was possibly battle damage) of non-combat related engine failure. I flew it for almost 19 years without ever losing an engine. I can say that without knocking on wood since I'm no longer flying it.
nwaf16dude is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 05:12 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hjs1971's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: KC-135R IP/EP
Posts: 273
Default

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude View Post
Got the whole story on this mission from Stroke 8 a couple years after. If I remember correctly this was the first big daylight trip to baghdad. The "root cause" of all the flailing was that the mission planners didn't consider the winds in their plan. IP to target was planned against a crazy headwind, slowing their ground speed way down, doubling their time in the heart of the threat and making them slow-moving grapes for the SAMs. At the time (Pre-gulf war) almost all of our training was low altitude stuff where winds weren't much of a factor. I think there were at least two aircraft lost that day. Lesson learned.

Follow on to the story. There were some real hero's driving the tankers that day. All that burner time dodging missiles had several guys very low on fuel. The tankers came way north from their safe areas to get them. Stroke 8 hit the tanker boom with about 600 lbs of gas, well north of good guy land. For you non-viper guys, that is just a very few minutes from running out of gas.

Did a fighter guy just give credit to the tanker drivers? Must be a misprint...

BTW- this guy was not up to ATP standards that day...in today's Air Force, he would have been Q-3'd for not holding altitude and he would have had to face the Wing King and Logistics Group Commander and explain why he left his bombs in the middle of the desert. He probably wasn't even wearing his reflective belt when he flew that mission...seems like a real renegade to me. I kid, I kid! Nice piece of flying.
hjs1971 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 05:22 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hrkdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Fairly local
Posts: 1,458
Default

What amazed me were the number of missile launches without any target track tones from the RWR (unless I just couldn't hear them). This tape was used in a tactics class talking about radar threats, specifically the SA-6 launching with delayed illumination. They had a whole pant-load of SA-6s in flight at the same time. I can only imagine what they were feeling when they kept hearing the ML tones.
Hrkdrivr is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
4andCounting
Major
0
05-25-2011 12:42 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices