Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: aroe@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Bongo) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: why F-4's as Wild Weasels? Keywords: radar suppression, F-4, airframe Message-ID: <1991Feb5.044838.7296@cbnews.att.com> Date: 5 Feb 91 04:48:38 GMT References: <1991Feb4.072034.23521@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 Lines: 51 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Bongo In article <1991Feb4.072034.23521@cbnews.att.com> clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) writes: >Can someone fill in the blank in the following sentences? > >(1) "The F-4 makes an ideal aircraft to carry out the > Wild Weasel mission, compared to other a/c in the USAF > inventory, because _____________________." The Wild Weasel Concept was originally designed for use in conjunction with the EF-4 airframe. The frame's design is closely coordinated with the design and needs of the equipment used for the Wild Weasel mission. Adaptation to another airframe would a) produce many problems and bugs that need to be overcome and b) be less economical than producing a new system for another plane from scratch. Adapting W/W for another plane is like trying to put a Phoenix on an F-15 (need new radar, electronics, etc) or the A-10's 30mm cannon on an F-16 (OUCH!). >(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a > good Wild Weasel platform." (If not, why not?) Would not. First, the F-117 is far too expensive for this type of mission, playing chicken with a SAM is not for the stealth fighter. Second, many of the missiles like the HARM requires that the enemy radar illuminate the plane, and give away its location. If the enemy doesn't know that we're there (as is the case with the F-117), they won't activate their radars, and then you can't home in on it. >(3) (If answer to #2 is "would", then: > "USAF doesn't use the F-117 for the Wild Weasel mission > because _________________________." See above. >An ignorant person's wild guesses (mine) would be: >(1) "Beats me. All I can think of is (a) two engines are better than one > if your primary goal is to get shot at; and (b) this is a 2-person > job. Those two criteria point either to the F-4 or the F-15E. And > (c) Every other job the F-4 might do is currently filled." More like using a cheaper planes is better if your primary goal is to get shot at. >Thanks, >pc ------ Andrew Roe aroe@jarthur.claremont.edu