Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 20:40

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
optimist wrote:As I recall and I don't know if the situation has changed. The Rafale couldn't fly with the Growler because it's systems were jammed up by the Growler. Like the proposed Rafale HMD, that was jammed by its shipboard radar on landing. It would be interesting to see what part the Growler plays in exercises being done with the French and the USN now.


This is likely untrue. In any plans meeting, deconfliction of frequencies that are to be jammed and the specific time blocks of when they are being jammed are discussed in the planning phase far in advance of the operation.

The caveat being that the J3 liaison on the US/French side dropped the ball, but this is highly unlikely with an operation of this level of visibility.

I recall reading it. It wasn't untrue in Libya at the time and it wasn't just frequencies it went further. It may well be sorted now for joint operations and why I wondered about the role of the Growler in USN/Rafale joint training exercises.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 20:51

spazsinbad wrote:From the WickedPedia:
"...The ALQ-99 has also interfered with the [GROWLER] aircraft's AESA radar and has imposed a high workload on the two-man crew, along with reducing the Growler's top speed...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

Thanks for posting that, it is a beast. That was back in 2011 by wiki and the time of Libya. I think that was sorted with the radar pulse timing. They use INCANS for comms. "Every time we turn it on, it hits us over the head like a hammer and my chocolate bar melts". :)
Aussie fanboy
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 461
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 23:17

spazsinbad wrote:From the WickedPedia:
"...The ALQ-99 has also interfered with the [GROWLER] aircraft's AESA radar and has imposed a high workload on the two-man crew, along with reducing the Growler's top speed...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler


This is not a surprise. Jamming works both ways. If you broadband jam, it's not just the enemy who you are blinding. The ALQ-99 isn't also synced with other aircraft than the Growler.

It isn't so much the Rafale can't operate in conjunction with the Growler, it's more likely that they weren't being synchronized in the mission planning.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 04:17

How do you want to say this? Rafale shuts down and falls from the sky in a fireball. :shock:
I only know what I read at the time. It couldn't fly with a Growler. I don't know what the Growler was doing. It tends not to do barrage jamming when in escort. Here I am, kill me. When in standoff it can pump the noise and raises the noise floor
Aussie fanboy
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3583
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 06:58

herciv wrote:


I like a lot this article. Since it is clearly stated that every AESA systems can be used to jam with a very good efficiency in an offensive way.
For Example HUAWEI with all their AESA antenna all over the world could perfectly jam at a very large scale every nation. (NOKIA or Erikson also :wink: ).

Every missile with such AESA antenna also at a very short range of course.


Actually that's not the case. AESA systems can and are being used for dedicated jamming systems, and they are really good for that. But adding jamming functions to AESA radars or 5G base station antennas is not that simple. For example in the case of AESA radar, it requires very close integration with EW suite with very fast data transfer between the systems to be really effective. In F-35 and F-22 the EW suite and AESA radar are not standalone systems but both transfer all the signals to sensor fusion system which directly controls the EW and radar functions and there is direct and very fast connection between EW suite and radar antenna.

In current 4th generation aircraft that have AESA and EW suite, they are still separate standalone sensor systems that handle their spesific functions. They lack direct integration of AESA radar and EW suite and sensor fusion systems don't have ability to control and task the sensors independently and automatically like in F-35 or F-22. The upcoming ECRS Mk 2 radar for Eurofighter has EW and EA functions but they have solved the problem slightly differently:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... eaks-cover

The UK has long resisted pressure to join the existing Typhoon AESA program, insisting that it needed a more advanced radar, with electronic attack (EA) and electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, in order to operate autonomously in the most challenging contested environments or to add value to a 4th/5th generation force mix.


ECRS Mk 2 has a new processor, a new receiver, a dedicated EW receiver and techniques generator, and a different repositioner that uses a single rotating joint rather than the double swashplate arrangement of Captor-E


Basically this new AESA radar has it's own EW system that's separate from EuroDass Praetorian EW suite. I'm sure the systems will be synchronized but I think this solution is still somewhat less ideal than F-35 type solution. But it makes it possible to upgrade current Eurofighters with this capability and is also far easier and cheaper than totally changing the avionics system architecture.

There is no similar EW/EA functionality in RBE2 AESA, ECRS Mk1 or Raven-05 AESA because they lack similar integration with EW suite. Thales has mentioned that they are developing a GaN AESA for Rafale with EW/EA abilities:

https://www.key.aero/article/future-rafale

Thales and the DGA are actively preparing the future radar developments that will be introduced on Standard F4.2, incorporating cutting-edge Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology for the radar and jammer antennas. Thanks to additional radar apertures, detection capabilities will be unmatched and electronic attack capabilities will become a reality. The programme director explained: “Even though we are entirely satisfied with the current RBE2 AESA radar, we are already working on the next generation scheduled to appear on new-build aircraft in 2025.


Would definitely be interesting to know whether Dassault offer to Finland includes this radar. Eurofighter is offering ECRS Mk2, which will give far superior capabilities (or at least have potential) to current RBE2 AESA in Rafale or Raven-05 in Gripen. This might also be why Saab is also developing a new GaN AESA even though Raven-05 is yet to see real operational service.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 461
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 08:49

optimist wrote:How do you want to say this? Rafale shuts down and falls from the sky in a fireball. :shock:
I only know what I read at the time. It couldn't fly with a Growler. I don't know what the Growler was doing. It tends not to do barrage jamming when in escort. Here I am, kill me. When in standoff it can pump the noise and raises the noise floor


I took time out of my work day to present this so I hope you appreciate it.

Let's assume this is a radar scope. What you see here is a large radar return on the Rafale, which is why pilots call that they've been "spiked".

IMG_0462.jpg


This is what happens when you introduce barrage jamming or broadband jamming (lost in translation).

IMG_0464.jpg


With barrage jamming, each spike needs to be investigated to determine if it's a threat, which is why it's effective since the Rafale (or any plane) can hide in all those spikes.

The downside is that the noise floor increases so much that the Rafale's radar doesn't have the ability to "burn through" the jamming because it doesn't have enough power. It is also flying blind.

It's not necessarily a fault of the Rafale, but more about how much EM is being put out and that the Rafale's radar can't compensate. That's no surprise because ground based radars have more energy so the EM energy being put out by the Growler is going to drown out both ground based systems and the Rafale.

PS. please excuse the banana in the photo, wife is having cramps

PS 2: I just realized I wrote "noised" floor. I promise I'm not retarded. I'm just 2 (or 5) whiskies deeps since I've had an excellent day so I'm celebrating.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3583
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 11:07

herciv wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Actually that's not the case. AESA systems can and are being used for dedicated jamming systems, and they are really good for that. But adding jamming functions to AESA radars or 5G base station antennas is not that simple. For example in the case of AESA radar, it requires very close integration with EW suite with very fast data transfer between the systems to be really effective.

Yes I can agree with that. But what i was thinking in reality was the MICA NG in reference to missile able to standin jamming.
The second point was that Rafale have several AESA antennas. One is the RBE-2 the three others are used by SPECTRA.
Two are on the Canard. One on the base of the drift .. and perhaps one more on top of the drift ?


Yes, theoretically something like MICA NG with AESA seeker could also do some form of jamming. However I doubt that as it'd not be very good missile for that especially if it's used as air-to-air missile at the same time. Something like Spear-EW has a lot more internal space for EW equipment, is a lot slower allowing it to jam for extended time and is a dedicated EW variant of the regular Spear missile.

Yes, Spectra uses AESA antennas but these are dedicated EW antennas. Similar to F-35 which also uses similar antennas for EW functions along with the main radar antenna. MADL also uses AESA antennas and could very possibly also be used for high powered jamming in Ku-band. That would be useful against missiles which use Ku-band seekers. That includes many active radar homing missiles. AESA antennas are definitely the way to go these days in all RF systems.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 11:15

hornetfinn wrote:
herciv wrote:


I like a lot this article. Since it is clearly stated that every AESA systems can be used to jam with a very good efficiency in an offensive way.
For Example HUAWEI with all their AESA antenna all over the world could perfectly jam at a very large scale every nation. (NOKIA or Erikson also :wink: ).

Every missile with such AESA antenna also at a very short range of course.


Actually that's not the case. AESA systems can and are being used for dedicated jamming systems, and they are really good for that. But adding jamming functions to AESA radars or 5G base station antennas is not that simple. For example in the case of AESA radar, it requires very close integration with EW suite with very fast data transfer between the systems to be really effective. In F-35 and F-22 the EW suite and AESA radar are not standalone systems but both transfer all the signals to sensor fusion system which directly controls the EW and radar functions and there is direct and very fast connection between EW suite and radar antenna.

In current 4th generation aircraft that have AESA and EW suite, they are still separate standalone sensor systems that handle their spesific functions. They lack direct integration of AESA radar and EW suite and sensor fusion systems don't have ability to control and task the sensors independently and automatically like in F-35 or F-22. The upcoming ECRS Mk 2 radar for Eurofighter has EW and EA functions but they have solved the problem slightly differently:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... eaks-cover

The UK has long resisted pressure to join the existing Typhoon AESA program, insisting that it needed a more advanced radar, with electronic attack (EA) and electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, in order to operate autonomously in the most challenging contested environments or to add value to a 4th/5th generation force mix.


ECRS Mk 2 has a new processor, a new receiver, a dedicated EW receiver and techniques generator, and a different repositioner that uses a single rotating joint rather than the double swashplate arrangement of Captor-E


Basically this new AESA radar has it's own EW system that's separate from EuroDass Praetorian EW suite. I'm sure the systems will be synchronized but I think this solution is still somewhat less ideal than F-35 type solution. But it makes it possible to upgrade current Eurofighters with this capability and is also far easier and cheaper than totally changing the avionics system architecture.

There is no similar EW/EA functionality in RBE2 AESA, ECRS Mk1 or Raven-05 AESA because they lack similar integration with EW suite. Thales has mentioned that they are developing a GaN AESA for Rafale with EW/EA abilities:

https://www.key.aero/article/future-rafale

Thales and the DGA are actively preparing the future radar developments that will be introduced on Standard F4.2, incorporating cutting-edge Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology for the radar and jammer antennas. Thanks to additional radar apertures, detection capabilities will be unmatched and electronic attack capabilities will become a reality. The programme director explained: “Even though we are entirely satisfied with the current RBE2 AESA radar, we are already working on the next generation scheduled to appear on new-build aircraft in 2025.


Would definitely be interesting to know whether Dassault offer to Finland includes this radar. Eurofighter is offering ECRS Mk2, which will give far superior capabilities (or at least have potential) to current RBE2 AESA in Rafale or Raven-05 in Gripen. This might also be why Saab is also developing a new GaN AESA even though Raven-05 is yet to see real operational service.

I agree with all most all of your post.
I think that last quote was PR for 2025 GaN. It is good tech and enables the existing onboard power generation to be able to upspec the radar efficiency. However I think the GaN AESA antenna is just an antenna, as are the other nations developments. What is transmitted is generated in the backend. This is where the work will be done. It was always a RBE2 backend issue with Rafale. Sticking an AESA antenna on the front was just that. I see no reason why what can/will be generated, can't be transmitted through current Ga antenna chips and is not the reason there is no EW/EA.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 11:33

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
optimist wrote:How do you want to say this? Rafale shuts down and falls from the sky in a fireball. :shock:
I only know what I read at the time. It couldn't fly with a Growler. I don't know what the Growler was doing. It tends not to do barrage jamming when in escort. Here I am, kill me. When in standoff it can pump the noise and raises the noise floor


I took time out of my work day to present this so I hope you appreciate it.

Let's assume this is a radar scope. What you see here is a large radar return on the Rafale, which is why pilots call that they've been "spiked".

IMG_0462.jpg


This is what happens when you introduce barrage jamming or broadband jamming (lost in translation).

IMG_0464.jpg


With barrage jamming, each spike needs to be investigated to determine if it's a threat, which is why it's effective since the Rafale (or any plane) can hide in all those spikes.

The downside is that the noise floor increases so much that the Rafale's radar doesn't have the ability to "burn through" the jamming because it doesn't have enough power. It is also flying blind.

It's not necessarily a fault of the Rafale, but more about how much EM is being put out and that the Rafale's radar can't compensate. That's no surprise because ground based radars have more energy so the EM energy being put out by the Growler is going to drown out both ground based systems and the Rafale.

PS. please excuse the banana in the photo, wife is having cramps

PS 2: I just realized I wrote "noised" floor. I promise I'm not retarded. I'm just 2 (or 5) whiskies deeps since I've had an excellent day so I'm celebrating.

Yes agree. However the current encoded tech works within the generated noise floor, doesn't it? Low probability of detection. It's to hide the EM field. an example everyone would know is their cell phone. If you heard all the transmissions at once, by every phone on the tower, that would be the 'floor'. Your encoded signal is unique and is clearly transmitted and heard by your handpiece, working within the 'floor'.
Does your wife use a hot water bottle for those cramps?
Last edited by optimist on 17 Jun 2021, 11:48, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3583
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 11:45

optimist wrote:I think that last quote was PR for 2025 GaN. It is good tech and enables the existing onboard power generation to be able to upspec the radar efficiency. However I think the GaN AESA antenna is just an antenna, as are the other nations developments. What is transmitted is generated in the backend. This is where the work will be done. It was always a RBE2 backend issue with Rafale. Sticking an AESA antenna on the front was just that. I see no reason why what can/will be generated, can't be transmitted through current Ga antenna chips and is not the reason there is no EW/EA.


Yes, that's a problem with many current AESA radars for using them as EW or comms antennas. AN/APG-81 doesn't really even have an actual backend as all the sensors in F-35 have basically a common backend. That's why it can be used for any task sendig out RF signals besides being used as a radar. Another way is what is done with Eurofighter ECRS Mk2, which allows using the radar as ESM/EW system but not for communications for example. I see the problem being having good enough integration of radar and ESM/EW functions and controlling that. In F-35 it's done by the sensor fusion engine which is deeply integrated with and controls every sensor in the aircraft.

I agree that GaAs can be used for that and is definitely done in F-35 and F-22. But for Rafale it will have to wait until GaN version as it doesn't really make sense to develop another version with GaAs modules at this point. Current RBE2 AESA just doesn't work because of the backend issue you mention. I think they will likely go with the ECRS Mk2 way as it's easier and cheaper to implement.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3347
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 12:52

hornetfinn wrote:
herciv wrote:


I like a lot this article. Since it is clearly stated that every AESA systems can be used to jam with a very good efficiency in an offensive way.
For Example HUAWEI with all their AESA antenna all over the world could perfectly jam at a very large scale every nation. (NOKIA or Erikson also :wink: ).

Every missile with such AESA antenna also at a very short range of course.


Actually that's not the case. AESA systems can and are being used for dedicated jamming systems, and they are really good for that. But adding jamming functions to AESA radars or 5G base station antennas is not that simple. For example in the case of AESA radar, it requires very close integration with EW suite with very fast data transfer between the systems to be really effective. In F-35 and F-22 the EW suite and AESA radar are not standalone systems but both transfer all the signals to sensor fusion system which directly controls the EW and radar functions and there is direct and very fast connection between EW suite and radar antenna.

...


Once again, excellent post hornetfinn!

And I would like to add the following to your post:
- Not only it's hard to use/implement an AESA radar as an EW antenna and thus allow a more powerful directional jamming but there's IMO an 'issue' when using this "EW+AESA" combo in Electronic Attack (and thus offensive jamming) roles which is the fact that this combo will never be able to put the same level output when compared to dedicated Jamming Pods like the ones carried by the Growler or putting into another perspective in order for the "EW+AESA" combo to be really effective in Electronic Attack roles the aircraft needs to be and get much closer to the enemy radar sources you need STEALTH in order to be able to effective Jam the threats (since the output is lower than dedicated jamming pods) and to avoid being counter-detected when doing it so!
And that's why the F-22 and F-35 are very effective in Electronic Attack roles using the "EW+AESA" combo.

But with 4th and 4.5th non-stealth fighter aircraft such "EW+AESA" combo would never be effective or as effective in Electronic Attack roles!
Note that I'm not saying that the "EW+AESA" combo would be useless in a 4th and 4.5th non-stealth fighter aircraft but in this case it would only be really useful in a defensive way or against lower level (less powerful) threats such for example a SA-15 or against old/older systems.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

bonplan

Banned

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2019, 13:04

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 16:46

hornetfinn wrote:
herciv wrote:
magitsu wrote:
Would definitely be interesting to know whether Dassault offer to Finland includes this radar. Eurofighter is offering ECRS Mk2, which will give far superior capabilities (or at least have potential) to current RBE2 AESA in Rafale or Raven-05 in Gripen. This might also be why Saab is also developing a new GaN AESA even though Raven-05 is yet to see real operational service.


RBE2 AESA is on duty for more than 8 years. It is a mature product, using all the soft written for the PESA one and some new (not used on PESA), ie it has a 20+ years fine tune behind it. RBE2 perf are well kownn and strong.

Where are the other eurocanards AESA radars? only at a nearly prototyp state for EF, years late, and at the beginning of its life for Gripen E, so probably with only some air to air mode.

So it's like comparing apple and strawberry.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 17:10

The WWII Spitfire has many years behind it. I'm not seeing your point. It's similar to the last post, last page, when a picture was shown as proof of something? The more national pride in a post, the less objective it is. The radar is obsolete and they are bringing out a new one in 4 years.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3347
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 18:34

herciv wrote:What do you think of this as an EA jammer ?


And what's the objective of that post/question of yours (together with the picture)?? I'm confused... :?

It was already explained to you that SPECTRA isn't an 'offensive' EA jammer. Instead SPECTRA is a defensive (and solely defensive) EW suite/jammer, period!

When you see written that SPECTRA can be used to attack enemy Air Defences (like in one of your sources) this is done by using Geo-location like for example in the following hypothetical scenario:
- An enemy radar of an air defence system like for example a S-400 "pops up" (turns on) around the position of a flight of Rafales and what will SPECTRA do?
It will try to Geo-locate the position of that same enemy radar. I also imagine that other Rafale sensors, namely the radar can be used to better 'refine' or geo-locate the enemy radar with greater/better precision. After this, that enemy radar could be engaged with long range GPS guided weapons such as the Storm Shadow (or SCALP EG in French service).

That's how SPECTRA would be used in a SEAD/DEAD mission. Capiche now?
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7224
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 21:15

herciv wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
herciv wrote:What do you think of this as an EA jammer ?


And what's the objective of that post/question of yours (together with the picture)?? I'm confused... :?

It was already explained to you that SPECTRA isn't an 'offensive' EA jammer. Instead SPECTRA is a defensive (and solely defensive) EW suite/jammer, period!

That's how SPECTRA would be used in a SEAD/DEAD mission. Capiche now?


Do you feel confident flying against modern air defences in a non-stealthy aircraft?
“Great question. I’m not sure an aircraft’s stealthiness is going to make much difference anyway against very modern stuff. We’re not afraid of low level penetrations in the french air force. So come and get me with your S-400 if I’m at 200 feet above the ground — that’s not going to happen anytime soon so. I’m not afraid. It’s something we’re trained in and so it’s part of the job. And if you want a lot munitions or stores you’re going to lose on your stealthy signature anyway. So it’s not something of much concern – that’s why we train to keep current at very low level penetration. Which is really good as we get to fly at low level – which is awesome. I can’t complain.”
https://hushkit.net/2019/11/11/flying-f ... t-veteran/


Wow what a band-aid. But the pilot likes it because its fun.

Also speaking of band-aides this is a subject change. We went from

Claiming SPECTRA was offensive jamming,

to "modern air defenses in a non-stealthy aircraft" Which is now flying at low level with no mention of SPECTRA Whatsoever.

What an evolution of the argument. SPECTRA? STEALTH? Who cares we fly at 200 feet. its fun. So its short in EW and short in LO but they just make up for it with low level? Welcome to 1977. Hell even in 1991 we watched several strikes get curb stomped both with the US and the RAF. We figured out it was a really dumb way to operate with high casualties, damage, and aircraft losses. The Tornadoes morale collapsed and this was against the iraqi B team that had a lot of their toys broken already-- 30 years ago. I can't believe this is actually being sold as a virtue

What a joke. This is fairly simple. Rafale is a carrier based 4.5 Gen fighter. Which basically me its in and around the Super Hornet. Some things its going to be ahead in, others behind in, but its not some revolution.

I don't know if things are being lost in translation but the Rafale fans have made not only a mess of this thread and another, but a mess of their arguments across both threads and 1 of the 3 has been banned for his stupidity.

So Rafale can't compete electronically and has to go low level. Got it.

British Fliers Suffering Higher Rate of Losses : Combat: Analysts cite the Royal Air Force’s daring style and its hazardous mission as causes
By Kim Murphy and Douglas Frantz, JAN. 23, 1991 12 AM PT

DHAHRAN, Saudi Arabia — British pilots, renowned for flying extremely low and fast at their targets, are suffering dramatically higher casualty rates than their American counterparts in Gulf War missions.
The relatively large number of British Tornado jets lost so far--five--is the result, military experts say, of both the Royal Air Force’s daring flying style and the extremely hazardous mission they have been given by allied commanders: destroying the runways that serve Iraq’s air force.

In the complex web of tasks assigned the allied partners for the aerial dismantling of the Iraqi war machine--ranging from high-altitude carpet bombing of troops to medium-range attacks on military installations--the dangerous job of sweeping in close over heavily protected airfields and tearing up the runways has fallen primarily to the fabled RAF.

It is a job that makes the British Tornadoes and their crews sitting ducks for Iraqi antiaircraft barrages. Rather than fly at the relative safety of high altitude afforded many U.S. pilots, the British must go in low and maintain a steady course for the length of a runway while they dispense loads of specialized bombs.

[...]

Read the complete article at: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


From the US Navy which did a low level raid on an Iraqi Airfield:

On the night of 17-18 January, two USN A-6 Intruders were shot down. One VA-35 A-6E off Saratoga was downed by Iraqi AAA during a low-altitude strike on H-3 airfield in western Iraq (LT Robert Wetzel and LT Jeffrey Zaun were captured), and another A-6E on that strike was badly damaged and made an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia, where it was deemed unrepairable. The same night an A-6E from VA-155 off Ranger was shot down during a low-altitude minelaying mission in the approaches to the Iraqi naval base at Umm Qasr, (both LT William Costen and LT Charles Turner were killed).

The Losses were so acute the US Navy was barred from going in low level thereafter. "I think we learned our lesson didn't we?" he asked "I still can't believe you went in low"
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 36 guests