Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990 Figure 93. BQM-74 drone. The Airmen used the BQM-74 drone to deceive enemy radars as well as force them to reveal their positions to more active defensive measures. (Reprinted from http://www.multipull.com/ twascasefile/bqm74e.gif.) worked well, with the EA-6B and EF-111 receiving praise as “highly effective.” 22 The coalition also employed 60 F-4G Wild Weasels whose airframes and basic mission had first seen action in the Vietnam War. They carried electronic equipment that enabled them to detect, identify, and locate radar signals and then attack the radars with homing air-to-ground missiles. According to the Air Force’s Gulf War Air Power Survey, the F-4G was the weapon of choice for combating the Iraqi radars. One reason was that it was the only US Air Force aircraft that could program the HARM (high-speed antiradiation missile) in flight as to what targets not to hit, making them “smart weapons.” The Weasels flew both autonomous and support missions, in all 2,700 sorties during the war with one combat loss. 23 225
GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990 The Marines and Navy fielded 39 EA-6B Prowlers. These aircraft also dated back to the Vietnam War and used both jammers and missiles to counter enemy radars. They flew 1,630 combat sorties while firing more than 150 HARMs without a combat loss. The Navy claimed it flew 60 percent of the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) missions. 24 The Air Force also used two dozen EF-111A Ravens. The aircraft had a speed and range advantage over the Prowler, while the latter had jammers that were more effective. The EF-111’s airframe also dated back to the Vietnam War era when they were used as bombers. (The US Air Force converted 42 to the electronic warfare role.) The Raven carried equipment to detect and jam enemy radars in both a standoff role and along with the penetrating attackers. The EF-111s flew 1,105 combat missions with one noncombat loss. 25 Another Air Force jamming platform was the EC-130H Compass Call, a modified C-130 four-engine turboprop transport. Its mission was to intercept and jam enemy radio communications to confuse and disrupt the Iraqis. Although automated, the crew included nine Airmen who operated the electronic equipment. The US Air Force had 18 of these aircraft that flew 450 sorties during Desert Storm. 26 The coalition used direct attack as well and employed a variety of air-to-surface missiles that homed in on the Iraqi radars. Shrike was the oldest of these missiles, having first seen service in Vietnam in 1965. Carrying a 149-pound warhead against Iraqi radars, the missile was limited by its range. American forces fired 78 of these during the campaign, more than half by the US Air Force. 27 The most used antiradiation missile, however, was the HARM. This missile first flew in 1979 and achieved IOC in 1984. It could carry its 145-pound warhead more than 10 miles (dependent on launch altitude). 28 Because of the HARMs, after the first three hours of the war, the Iraqis seldom used their radars to guide their SAMs. The Air Force concluded that 45 percent of the HARMs fired by the Wild Weasels caused Iraqi radars to stop operating. Instead, the Iraqis fired their radar-guided SAMs ballistically, scary—but ineffective. On the first night, 226
Page 2 and 3:
Report Documentation Page Form Appr
Page 4 and 5:
Air University Library Cataloging D
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER .
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS Chapter Page 7 BALLISTIC M
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS Figure Page 30 George Pred
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS Figure Page 70 Blowpipe .
Page 14 and 15:
Foreword Dr. Kenneth Werrell’s hi
Page 16 and 17:
About the Author Dr. Kenneth P. Wer
Page 18 and 19:
PREFACE excluded from the original
Page 20 and 21:
PREFACE always been a factor in air
Page 22 and 23:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Artillery Institute
Page 24 and 25:
ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 7. British 40 mm light antia
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES American air
Page 94 and 95:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES company deliv
Page 96 and 97:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES (discussed la
Page 98 and 99:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES flak rockets
Page 100 and 101:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES 1953, the rat
Page 102 and 103:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES to 1,285 in J
Page 104 and 105:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 40. Ar
Page 106 and 107:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES cember 1958,
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 42. Nike Hercules. The Nike
Page 110 and 111:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Airmen test-f
Page 112 and 113:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Bomarc failed
Page 114 and 115:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Despite knowl
Page 116 and 117:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 47. Ha
Page 118 and 119:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Army decided
Page 120 and 121:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The third fam
Page 122 and 123:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES with both les
Page 124 and 125:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES that fired ov
Page 126 and 127:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 53. Br
Page 128 and 129:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The two-decad
Page 130 and 131:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES A. H. Peterso
Page 132 and 133:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES “SAMs Spur
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 3 Airmen versus Guerrillas:
Page 136 and 137:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS the next y
Page 138 and 139:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS war with t
Page 140 and 141:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS Figure 56.
Page 142 and 143:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS firings fr
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS and Navy c
Page 148 and 149:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS American A
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS but modifi
Page 156 and 157:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS In all, du
Page 158 and 159:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS least an e
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS War Vietna
Page 164 and 165:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS D.C.: Depa
Page 166 and 167:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS 97, 121; a
Page 168 and 169:
Chapter 4 Operations between Vietna
Page 170 and 171:
OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197: OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 202 and 203: Chapter 5 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 204 and 205: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Army cons
Page 206 and 207: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Figure 80
Page 208 and 209: Figure 81. Spartan launch. The Spar
Page 210 and 211: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE a limited
Page 212 and 213: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE these wer
Page 214 and 215: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ment to c
Page 216 and 217: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE developin
Page 218 and 219: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Radar Int
Page 220 and 221: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE when the
Page 222 and 223: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE casualtie
Page 224 and 225: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE fluential
Page 226 and 227: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE missiles
Page 228 and 229: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE psycholog
Page 230 and 231: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6. Army O
Page 232 and 233: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE April 196
Page 234 and 235: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 54. Reiss
Page 236 and 237: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 74. GWAPS
Page 238 and 239: Chapter 6 Ground-Based Air Defense
Page 240 and 241: GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990
Page 258 and 259: Chapter 7 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 260 and 261: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 19
Page 264 and 265: Figure 96. Arrow launch.The Arrow i
Page 290 and 291: Chapter 8 Summary, Trends, and Conc
Page 292 and 293: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS ev
Page 294 and 295: SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS te
Page 296 and 297:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS EC
Page 298 and 299:
Index A-1, 128, 227-28, 232 A-4, 12
Page 300 and 301:
INDEX Convair, 98 Crotale, 158 D-da
Page 302 and 303:
INDEX Gulf of Tonkin incident, 115
Page 304 and 305:
INDEX Remagen, 24, 57, 270 RF-4C, 1
Page 306 and 307:
INDEX SAM, 34, 74, 81-82, 84, 87, 9
Page 308:
Archie to SAM A Short Operational H
show all

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?