Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: pur-ee!muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: why F-4's as Wild Weasels?
Keywords: radar suppression, F-4, airframe
Message-ID: <1991Feb9.034610.5446@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 9 Feb 91 03:46:10 GMT
References: <1991Feb4.072034.23521@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 68
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: pur-ee!muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller)
In article <1991Feb4.072034.23521@cbnews.att.com> clements@cs.utexas.edu (Paul C. Clements) writes:
>
>(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 _____________________."

    When the F-4G came into service as the new wild weasel in the late 1970's,
    it had the advantage of being available, and having a rear seat.  At this
    time, F-16's were a brand new, and the F-15's were too valuable (and 
    expensive) in the air superiority role to use as wild weasels

>(2) "The F-117 ___________________ (would, would not) make a
>    good Wild Weasel platform."   (If not, why not?)

   Would not, for the following reasons:
     1)  It doesn't show up on radar.  The idea of the wild weasel is to bait
	   the SAM operators to turn on their radars', so that the weasel can
	   fire a HARM (High speed, Anti-Radiation Missile) at them to take them
	   out.  If the plane was stealthy, then the SAMs' would not turn on
	   their firing radars, because they wouldn't know there was a target.

     2)  It is too small.  It would probably be very difficult, if not
	 impossible to fit on / carry all of the electronics gear and missiles
	 that an F-4G currently does.

     3)  It doesn't have a backseat.  There are a lot of complicated electronics
	 on a wild weasel to operate, probably too many for one person.  It also
	 is unlikeely that it could be given a backseat while remeaing stealthy
	 without spending a lot of money.

>(3) (If answer to #2 is "would", then:  
>    "USAF doesn't use the F-117 for the Wild Weasel mission
>    because _________________________."
>
>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."

      The F-117 has two engines, BTW.  They are GE F404's without the
      afterburners (the F/A-18 uses F404's, and the recently cancelled A-12
      was to use a derivative of the F404.  The Swedish SAAB Gripen is to use
      a licensed built version of the F404, and the late F-20 used one as well)

      The F-15E will possibly get the job some time in the future, but, for now
      the F-5G's are doing it quite well.

>(2) "would, and how!"

      The F-117's are good at hitting known SAM sites, and have probably done 
      quite a bit of it in the current war.

>(3) "there aren't enough of them to go around"

      This will be true for the plane for its entire career, as they are too
      expensive to buy in mass when you consider how little they carry.  They
      are a useful compliment for the AF's other A/C, but they aren't able to
      actually replace anything


  *-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
  *  Mark Muller                  Undergraduate at Purdue University        *
  *  muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu     Aeronautics & Astronautics Engineering    *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------------------*