Tag Archives: Cold War

Douglas F3D, F-10 Skyknight

United States of America (1951)

Nightfighter & Electronic Warfare Aircraft: 265 built

Skyknights on the muddy ground of K-6, Korea. (USAG Humphreys)

Designed after the Second World War, the Douglas Skyknight was meant to be the defender of the American carrier group after dark. The ambitious design sought to use all of the lessons learned from night fighter design and tactics in the Second World War, and produced the first specialized all-weather jet fighter. While it would prove too cumbersome for use on the smaller WWII era fleet carriers, the Skyknight would prove to be an exceptional nightfighter when disembarked during its combat debut in the Korean war. Yet beyond the conflict, and entering rapid obsolescence as a fighter in the 1950s, the Skyknight would prove itself to be an able electronic warfare aircraft and a pioneering aircraft in its field.

American Night Fighter Experiences in WWII

The more advanced, radar equipped night fighter of the Second World War was an ad-hoc creation which combined state of the art airborne detection systems with often pre-existing fighter designs. The resultant creation was an interceptor capable of bringing down enemy aircraft at night, or in very poor weather. While they carried their own radars, the limits of their range required they be directed by ground controllers into the path of their target. Alternatively, they could be tasked with offensive patrols to harass the enemy over their own airfields or carry out ground attack missions. In either case, sorties were demanding, with the crews of these aircraft having to endure patrols of several hours, flying almost entirely by instruments, and occasionally in extreme weather conditions. Even without the dangers of aerial combat in the dark, flying these aircraft was often exhausting and dangerous work. Vertigo was as deadly an opponent as any enemy they might encounter. Unsurprisingly, the best qualities that these aircraft could possess were straightforward flying characteristics, like good handling and stability. A good night fighter needed to be uncomplicated, and forgiving in how it flew.

The P-61 was a massive, but fairly short ranged night fighter with a mixed service record between the European and Pacific theaters. (san diego air and space museum)

The American nightfighters of the Second World War can largely be broken down into two groups. These were the heavier, twin engine, land based types in use with the Army Air Force, and the lighter carrier-embarked forces of the Navy. The Air Force’s principle nightfighter was the Northrop P-61 Black Widow, a purpose built, if somewhat over-engineered design that saw use across Western Europe and the Pacific. The design was cutting edge, featuring a state of the art airborne intercept radar system, and an impressive, if totally unnecessary, remote controlled gun turret. It flew exceptionally well, was nimble beyond what its size would suggest, and was fast enough to catch all but high flying, fast recon aircraft. Yet the design had two serious limitations. Foremost was its disappointing endurance, as in spite of its size, its limited fuel capacity and massive Pratt and Whitney R-2800 engines meant it had a range comparable to many single engine fighters. This was partially resolved by the installation of wing pylons which could fit either fuel tanks or bombs, though having to choose between ordinance or range imposed significant mission limitations. Less serious was its poor crew layout. As designed, the pilot and radar operator sat at opposite ends of the fuselage, hampering communication and, in the event of an accident, the loss of the intercom completely isolated the radar operator from the other two crewmembers. This limitation was overcome by the crews of the 425th Night Fighter Squadron, who moved the radar operator’s equipment to the gunner’s position. However, this modification was almost entirely limited to the European theater.

While the P-61 proved a capable night fighter, and an excellent all weather ground attack aircraft, there was much to be learned from the Mosquito Night Fighter Mk. 30’s that were made available to American crews near the end of the war. The Mosquito featured a side-by-side pilot and radar operator arrangement, and a large internal fuel capacity that gave it excellent range without having to install external fuel tanks. While it was less maneuverable, it was arguably the best night fighter of the war, capable of pursuing targets over long distances and attacking enemy rear line airfields at night, without having to sacrifice ordinance for range.

In all, the experiences of the P-61 crews were mixed. In Europe, they provided good night cover for the Army Corps they were assigned to, and during the siege of Bastogne, they were among the only fighters providing protection and support to the beleaguered Airborne forces in the city, when poor weather kept all but a handful of aircraft grounded. In the Pacific, they were less successful, particularly towards the end of the war. During the battle for the Philippines, they often struggled to deal with the swarms of Japanese fighter bombers that flew dawn and dusk attack missions. The P-61’s were never designed or intended to defend against such forces, and found them a challenge to bring down. Where in Europe they gained the personal thanks of the commanding officer of the 101st Airborne Division within Bastogne, they were the target of General MacArthur’s personal frustrations as his beachheads were continually harassed by Japanese forces.

Small composite units of F6F and F4U Corsairs operated aboard US carriers for night defense. They proved just as capable when deployed ashore. (wikimedia)

In contrast to purpose built P-61, the night fighters of the US Navy were fairly simple conversions of existing fighter planes converted to serve as a defense for carriers at night. Variants of the F5F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were fitted with small, wing mounted radar sets to allow them to track and engage targets at night or in poor weather at the direction of ground controllers. They were far simpler aircraft, and generally were tied down more heavily to their ground controllers as a result of their shorter range, and simpler radar systems. Within the fleet, the duty of these night fighters was to contend with enemy aircraft that attempted to attack naval vessels under the cover of darkness. When assigned to land based Marine corps aviation, they were typically charged with the protection of amphibious operations and providing air cover for important installations. In both cases, these light night fighters proved very successful, and in the case of the Philippines, F6F Hellcat night fighters ended up replacing P-61’s as the defenders of the beach head. However, the limitations of the single engine fighters left the navy wanting something more. The Hellcat and Corsair night fighters were fast, but they had a fairly short range, and lacked a dedicated radar operator. The benefit of the heavier night fighter was its ability to more easily re-acquire targets which may have evaded the first attack and longer endurance, which allowed it to pursue and catch fleeing targets over an extended chase.

The new F7F-N was hoped to be the ultimate carrier based nightfighter of the Second World War, carrying both a second crewman to operate radar and navigation systems, and having a significantly better range. However, it was not to see use during the war, it was too large, and it was soon to be obsolete. The piston engine was being superseded by the jet turbine, and the carrier air wing of the future would soon need an aircraft to contend with threats far faster than any of their existing fighters.

Douglas’ Dark Knight

In August of 1945, at the very end of the Second World War, the Navy’s aviation bureau set its requirements for a new carrier based, jet night fighter. It called for a top speed of 500 mph (805 km/h), a service ceiling of up to an altitude of 40,000 ft (12,192 m), and a 125 mile (201 km) radar intercept range. Beyond its performance requirements, it was to also carry a pressurized cabin with temperature controls, and a robust set of de-icing equipment. Four companies presented bids, these being Douglas, Curtiss, Grumman, and Fleetwing, with preliminary design work beginning in October. By April of the following year, the contest was over, with only Douglas’ proposal receiving a letter of intent, the resources to construct three prototypes, and ground testing materials. Its daylight counterpart was to be the Grumman F9F Panther, with the two fighters being poised to propel the US carrier forces into the jet age.

Designer Ed Heinemann with his 88 Oldsmobile alongside the Skyknight. (smithsonian)

The design dubbed ‘Skyknight’ incorporated many of the lessons learned from the Second World War. The aircraft’s chief designer was the prolific Ed Heinemann, who designed some 20 aircraft through a very productive career. Some of his most notable creations were the venerable SBD Dauntless, AD Skyraider, and A-4 Skyhawk. His Skyknight featured a cutting edge search radar which was operated by a crewmember seated beside the pilot, allowing for easier communication. The radar was also to feature a fire control system which gave the pilot an accurate lead on his target, allowing him to engage maneuvering targets and those that were not visible to him. They attempted to fully resolve the drawbacks of the Black Widow by installing large internal fuel stores, but the high fuel consumption of the turbojet engines meant the aircraft had comparable range to most other jet fighters of the era. Beyond its combat ability, it was to be a very straightforward aircraft to fly, with stability at both extremes of its speed limits. Its only eccentricity was that it had an ejection chute as a means of crewmen to escape the aircraft in an emergency. Altogether, it was a conventional, honest aircraft that flew well.

The first XF3D-1 prototype was flown by test pilot Russ Thaw on March 23, 1948, with the second flight following in June, and the final in October. Apart from basic safety and performance tests, the aircraft was flown in mock intercepts against single seat jet fighters. Even with their World War II era SCR 720 radar, they easily managed 85 mile (136 km) intercepts with GCI support. The Air Force also conducted tests on the aircraft, and inquired about installing the fighters with afterburning engines, but declined and instead developed the all-weather F-89 Scorpion.

The Skyknight was a remarkably stable and maneuverable aircraft. (aerocorner)

After satisfactory land based flight testing, the Skyknight received a production contract. The F3D-1 would replace the prototype Westinghouse J-34-WE-22 engines with more powerful WE-38’s, and the WWII era SCR-720 radar system was replaced by the new AN/APQ-35, a change made in the third prototype. The new radar boasted a much longer effective range, and was the first airborne radar with a lock-on feature, which allowed for the continuous, automatic tracking of a radar contact. Modifications continued to be made on the F3D-1’s as the engines were again changed to the J34-WE-34’s and their plastic-glass nosecones were switched to fiberglass.

The Skyknight was built around the concept of the heavy night fighter, and was thus at the limits of how large a carrier-borne aircraft could be. In an age where carriers were originally designed for single-engined, piston aircraft, the F3D-1 would prove rather troublesome. The comparatively massive Skyknight was difficult for carrier deck crews to maneuver about the ship, and prepare it for launch. The bridle, which connected the nosewheel to the catapult, needed to be significantly stronger than those used for other navy fighters, and the proximity of the wheel to the engine intakes required a greater level of safety, and these precautions lengthened launch procedures. The landing gear shock absorbers too were also judged inadequate, as the plane bounced excessively during arrested recovery, and high vibrations were noted. This was particularly worrying, as the Skyknight’s radar system used vacuum tubes, and was quite fragile. These, and other problems, saw the F3D rated for marginal daylight use and was prohibited from launching and recovering at night.

Another major challenge was to be found in training programs, both for pilots and radar operators. The training program for radar operators was notably lacking, and provided no specialized training for the complex radar systems aboard the Skyknight. A result of an underappreciation for how sophisticated the job was, and a lack of funding.

The Skyknight’s were significantly larger than all previous carrier borne aircraft. This often proved challenging on carriers designed for single engine piston aircraft. (Naval Air Museum)

Landing issues were resolved in the subsequent, and final production model, the F3D-2. The new model was designed primarily to get larger, more powerful engines into the aircraft, though the J46 engine they were slated to receive never materialized. However, they still represented a serious improvement over the first model, as they were equipped with an improved version of the J34 engine, an autopilot, gun laying radar, tail warning radar, wing spoilers to increase the aircraft’s roll rate, and they received the modifications that would get them cleared for their full use aboard aircraft carriers. They soon succeeded the small number of F3D-1’s built, with the first aircraft being flown in February 1951.

The first of the new F3D-1 Skyknights took flight on February 13th of 1950, with the Navy accepting the first deliveries, which were then turned over to Composite Squadron VC-3 in December of the same year. One of Douglas’s test pilots, LaVerne Brown, would give the Naval Aviators an introduction to the aircraft. The Skyknight would fully enter service in February, with the aviators familiarizing themselves with the new aircraft, and being bolstered by another combat squadron, VC-4. The new squadron would be the only one to actually be deployed aboard carriers.

They would not prove ideal. The dimensions of the aircraft proved problematic, being far larger than what the deck crews were accustomed to, and they were occasionally mishandled, resulting in minor damage. The weight of the aircraft also complicated the use of the carrier’s catapults. The H-8 hydraulic launching system needed to be used close to its maximum power setting to launch the Skyknight, and if the bridle was not well connected to the aircraft, the catapult hook could break free, and be sent hurtling toward the end of the track at the bow of the ship. The collision would necessitate a lengthy repair, and during their deployment aboard the USS Lake Champlain, it happened twice, much to the frustration of all aboard. Lastly, the low mounting position and slight downward cant of the aircraft’s engines baked the wooden deck of the carriers and had a habit of setting alight any flammable materials which may have leaked from any of the planes or machinery present. These were never large, or particularly dangerous, but any conflagration on the deck was met with an alarm and the entire ship was sent to fire quarters. The Skyknight’s were seen as extremely inconvenient, and frustrating to the carrier’s commanders, who were also very unhappy that the plane had only one, very specialized use. The night fighters and their crews quickly became the black sheep of the air group, even to the other pilots.

The size of the new Skyknight earned it the nickname “Willie the Whale”, with ‘Whale’ slowly overtaking Skyknight as the crew’s preferred moniker. (US Navy)

Pilot’s views of the new aircraft were mixed. The Skyknight was like nothing naval pilots had flown before, and not only because it dwarfed every other plane on the flight deck. It lacked all the familiar trappings of a navy fighter, and if anything it reminded many of them more of a transport aircraft than any fighter they had ever flown. Beyond that, the tandem seating arrangement proved unique, as did the spacious, carpeted, air conditioned canopy equipped with a cigarette lighter and ashtrays. While the Skyknight was not proving to be the answer to after hours protection the US Navy was looking for, many of those assigned to the new jet could not help but be fascinated. They also soon found they could not help but be frustrated when they were asked countless questions about what the plane could not do and the capabilities it did not have. Unlike the other fighters of the US Navy, the Skyknight was not a fighter bomber, but that never stopped the press from asking questions about how many bombs it could carry, or their commanders asking if they could perform daylight strike and patrol missions.

The Skyknight was a bad fit for the carriers of its day. It was far too large and did not have the versatility that might have justified its many inconveniences. It was the bane of the carrier air group, and left deck crews and other pilots irritated, as it meant more work for them. It was a massive, catapult breaking, deck burning, fire starting annoyance that did only one mission. In spite of this, the Skyknight was to become one of the most exceptional aircraft of its day.

While Naval aviation found the Skyknight totally unsuitable for their purposes, the Marine Corps were eager to get ahold of them. The Marines still flew their piston engined Tigercats and Corsairs, and believed wholeheartedly in the two-man nightfighter concept the Navy still was not entirely sold on. As opposed to the Navy, with jet fighters aplenty, the Skyknight represented a massive upgrade for the Marines, who already flew a fair share of oddball planes. It was thus in the Corps that the Skyknight found its new home, and would soon demonstrate itself as an incredible nightfighter.

The Forgotten War

Following the end of the Second World War, the Korean Peninsula was controlled by a combined US-Soviet commission, which eventually saw the creation of two governments on either side of the 38th parallel, the formal boundary for Soviet-American jurisdiction. The American supported Republic of Korea was founded in the South, and the Soviet aligned Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was founded in the North. In spite of what the names might suggest, both regimes were dictatorships, and neither recognized each other’s legitimacy. Clashes occurred at the border, and the DPRK was emboldened when the US and Soviet forces withdrew in 1948. North Korean leader Kim Il Sung was confident his forces could reunite the country in a decisive military campaign, and received permission from Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to launch the invasion. On June 25, 1950, an artillery barrage heralded the start of the war as the DPRK’s forces pushed South, and their marines made landings along the Eastern Coast.

The war would escalate into an international conflict that brought in the Soviet Union, China, and the United States with its many allies under the banner of the newly formed United Nations. The air war over the peninsula was an odd affair, with several of the air forces involved having only recently been formed, and flying a mix of World War II era and modern jet aircraft. The People’s Republic of China had only been founded in 1949, with an airforce so new it had not even been fully organized by the start of the war. With Soviet support, they received training and aircraft, becoming a fully realized military force by the end of the war. The DPRK was likewise supported, and possessed a force of WWII era fighters and ground attack aircraft of Soviet make. The Soviets themselves sent pilots and aircraft, seeing it vital that they gain some experience in what was becoming the first modern air war. They would, however, maintain that they were never directly involved, with their pilots officially flying with the Chinese air force.

The UN Forces would operate an eclectic mix of aircraft. Here an outdated F-80 Starfighter shares the ramp with a modern F-86 Sabre. (National Archive)

The UN forces were backed by the largest airforce in the region, the US Far East Air Force, stationed in Japan. The force mostly operated the then obsolete B-29 and B-26 bombers, and F-80C jet fighters. It was by far the most powerful air force in the region, but unsuited for tactical support missions. The Air Force was supplemented by the US and Royal Navies with their carriers, and later, disembarked Marine aviation forces.

Technologically, the forces involved used both the crudest and most cutting edge equipment available. The Soviet aligned forces were, initially, almost entirely dependent on older WWII era stock, their main fighters being Yak-9Ps and La-9’s until attrition ground them away after several months of fighting. After roughly a year, they began to be replaced by the cutting edge Soviet MiG-15, which allowed North Korean and Chinese pilots to claim a level of parity, even as they were largely overwhelmed over much of the peninsula. The disparity in numbers would force them into a defensive strategy which involved a great deal of night operations, and basing nearly all of their new MiG’s in China, where their airfields could not be stalked by American fighters.

The UN forces flew a bewildering variety of propeller and jet aircraft, especially when compared to Communist forces, who by the middle of the war were flying little else than MiG-15s and light ground attack planes into combat. Once their forces were better established in the theater, American air forces pursued an offensive anti-air campaign over the northern half of the peninsula using their own cutting edge F-86 Sabre, while swarms of piston engined F-51 Mustangs, F4U Corsairs, and new Skyraiders were used for close air support, and massed B-29’s were flown against strategic and tactical targets.

The Soviet MiG-15 proved an incredible upgrade over the outdated Yakovlev piston engined fighters, matched in performance only by the Air Force’s F-86 Sabre. (Museum of the US Air Force)

These strategic raids were much the same as those of the Second World War. The Superfortresses targeted factories, power generating infrastructure, and bridges, though the inaccuracy of their methods left much of the northern half of the peninsula in ruins. In an effort to stop the raids, the Communist forces used their new MiG 15’s as interceptors, and could comfortably attack these formations with their combination of heavy cannons, and near unapproachable speed. Only the less common American F-86 Sabres were fast enough to catch them, and thus any real hope of keeping the B-29’s safe during daylight hours was gone. Their solution was to transition to night bombing, which would eliminate all but a few very specialized Soviet MiG 15 crews from being able to intercept them. This nocturnal shift in the war over the peninsula saw night fighting transitioning from a mostly tactical affair, involving aircraft raiding or defending frontline positions at night, to a strategic one that pitted each side’s most advanced aircraft against one another over control of the northern half of the peninsula.

Sallying Forth

Marine Nightfighter squadron VMF(N)-513 arrived in Korea in August of 1950 with a dozen Corsair night fighters, and a very difficult job to do. The pilots of the ‘Flying Nightmares’ flew night ground attack sorties in their WWII era fighters. After shuffling from airfield-to-airfield as the Chinese army began its southern march, the unit was reinforced by VMF(N)-542, most of which was returning stateside. The Nightmares received new pilots from the retiring squadron, and some twelve heavy F7F Tigercat night fighters. With them came a new job, night interdiction, which proved to be more dangerous, but much more important. The UN forces had air superiority over much of the peninsula, and thus the Communist forces took to moving most of their supplies at night, often in well armed, well protected convoys. For two years, the Nightmares flew some of the most dangerous missions of the war, with 54 aircraft being lost to all causes. It was in June of 1952 that the squadron was resupplied, again given a new aircraft, and a new mission.

The F4U-5N was the most common American night fighter of the early Korean war. They were primarily tasked with night ground attack missions. (Wikimedia)

While they had received planes and pilots from the 542 in-theater, a cadre of that squadron had retrained on the new F3D Skyknight. They would join the Flying Nightmares in June, bringing fifteen new night fighters, and shortly after, retiring the squadron’s Corsairs. As the Skyknight was virtually useless in an air to ground role, their task was to be the escorts for the air force’s B-29 raids over Northern Korea. They would, however, not enter combat for some time, as the cadre had not been equipped with the blast tubes for their 20 mm cannons. Lt. Col. Lambrecht would take charge of the deployed unit, now with 12 aircraft, 3 having been retained in Japan.

The unit would quickly install the tubes after they arrived on August 5th, with the first combat sortie penned for the 7th. It was to be flown by a joint Royal Air Force-USMC crew, with RAF pilot Squadron Leader John Gardener, and Marine radar operator Staff Sergeant Kropp taking the Skyknight up on its first patrol. It was a local patrol mission, and apart from investigating an unidentified IFF emergency code, not much occurred. Over the next several days, more missions were flown, though no enemy aircraft were intercepted. As it was in the Second World War, night intercepts were difficult, and any failures on the part of the ground based radar director, or the RO on the plane, could result in a botched intercept. Even with the new radar, closing with the target was still a challenging affair that tested the pilot and radar operator alike. It was clear that even with new technical advances, bringing down enemies at night would require a mastery of the equipment, and excellent coordination between all parties.

Having been mostly discarded by the Navy, the Skyknight soon found itself among other oddball aircraft in the inventory of the Marine Corps. Unlike the Navy, the Marines were not ones to turn away an offer for new jet fighters. (Smithsonian)

The enemy they chased was typically in one of two groups, either cutting edge MiG 15’s that were usually flown by Soviet pilots, and rarely encountered outside of the North, or very light trainer aircraft flown in a ground attack role. These were usually Yakovlev 18’s, or the exceedingly obsolete wood and fabric Po-2 biplane. Rarely were these attacks very serious, though their frequency earned them the moniker “bed check Charlie”, a title formerly held by Japanese night raiders of the Second World War. The Skyknights rarely encountered the light piston engined planes, and the MiG’s were their primary opponents.

They lacked radar, but the Soviet pilots were well trained in instrument flying and were proficient in ground directed radar intercepts. They were thus reliant on a local radar, and the tell-tale glow of the Skyknight’s turbojet engines to attack them. Their most effective tactic was a trap in which one MiG flew a straight and level course, while a second trailed it at a lower altitude. Should the first plane find itself pursued, the ground radar would warn them to speed up, and direct the second aircraft to climb and attack the pursuing Skyknight. As the American night fighter had a tail radar, it was often forewarned of the approach of the trailing MiG, but on one occasion, the Soviet pilot claimed a victory. The other threat to the Skyknight were radar directed searchlight traps, which disoriented the crew while AAA batteries attempted to bring them down. This proved far less dangerous than the MiGs.

The Skyknight would prove to be one of the only two aircraft to challenge the MiG-15, though unlike the faster Saber, it relied on its sophisticated radar systems to ambush the mostly blind MiGs. (USAG Humphreys)

While the Skyknights of the 513th were working themselves into combat, a pair of incidents would leave a dark mark on some of the unit’s early service. On August the 15th, the Squadron’s CO, Col. Lambrecht disappeared while on patrol from Kusan, and the Corsair sent to search for him failed to identify any wreckage. On the 1st of September, a catastrophic engine failure brought down another Skyknight. Flown by pilot Maj. Harrold Eiland with his RO, MSgt. Alois Motil, the plane’s starboard engine experienced power fluctuations before breaking down. A clanging noise alerted the crew, as the RPM gauge and fire alarms remained steady. Then the port engine failed, and the plane lost all thrust. As the plane was flying out from the airbase, it fell into the sea, and only Motil escaped the crash. A two month investigation grounded the planes until the culprit was found. It proved to be a turbine compressor failure, which sent shattered turbine blades through the fuselage and into the second engine. While local flights were still carried out, combat patrols would not be flown again until October 17th, when armor plates were installed aboard the aircraft.

The Nightmares wasted no time, and once they were airborne again, they took on the job of escorting the Air Force’s bombers under the leadership of Lt. Col. Homer Hutchinson, who succeeded the late commander in early September. He was notably a much more aggressive commander, who tasked his pilots with seeking out enemy road traffic on their return from their escort missions. Their first escort mission was conducted on November 3rd, to cover the areas where the Air Force’s night fighters were not permitted. Their F-94 Starfire carried sensitive equipment, and could not be directed over Communist held territory.

The Skyknight’s escort strategy mirrored the RAF’s nightfighter tactics of the Second World War. Upwards of six fighters were flown on separate tracks to find and bring down the enemy. One group flew barrier patrols between the bombers and known enemy fighter bases, a second group flew with the bomber formation, and the final group flew over the bomber’s target area. A typical escort operation involved nine Skyknights.

The first victory was soon claimed, with Maj William Stratton and RO MSgt Hans Hoglind catching an enemy at 14,000 ft (4267 m). They struck the aircraft with 20 mm cannon fire, hitting the port wing, fuselage, and tail pipe, with the burning plane shortly descending rapidly out of sight. It was claimed as a Yak 15, but declassified Soviet records identify the aircraft as a MiG 15 flown by Capt. V. Vishnyak, who survived and brought the wrecked MiG home. The squadron’s second victory came on the 8th, when Capt. Oliver Davis and his RO Dramus Fessler were vectored on to a target. The enemy noticed them and attempted to evade, though Davis turned with them and fired. Several shots struck the rear of the enemy aircraft, which set fire to its engine, and they saw it lose control, before plummeting to the earth. The plane belonged to Soviet pilot Lt. Ivan Kovalov.

These new victories inspired great confidence after the incidents of the previous Autumn. Now going into winter, the Skyknight crews of the 513th settled into a routine of escort, and offensive patrols. Between November and January, they claimed four enemy jets and were getting a better handle for the ordeal that the escort mission was soon proving to be. The massive number of aircraft airborne, and the limited number of ground directors meant that communications with GCI operators were heavily strained. Coupling that with the task of navigating the predetermined patrol areas for about two hours, it all added up for a demanding job for pilot and RO alike.

In spite of all that, they proved extremely successful. The Skyknight was proving to be an exceptional night fighter, and was conducting patrols over Northern Korea with impunity. The only real threat were MiG traps, which could only be conducted in clear weather, and depended on perfect coordination between radarless planes and their ground controller.

In those first three months, bomber losses fell, and between February and July, no B-29’s would be lost to enemy fighters. The ungainly Skyknight, once considered almost useless by the Navy, was now proving itself indispensable to night operations over Korea.

The Long Haul

The Nightmares would be joined by another Skyknight unit in the Summer of 1953. VC-4, detachment 44N, the ‘Nightcappers’, arrived in Korea aboard the USS Lake Champlain in early June of 1953. The four planes were proving an absolute nuisance to the operation of the carrier, and they were prevented from flying as much as possible. The detachment’s officer, Lt. O’Rourke, would try his best to argue for more flight hours, in order to simply retain their proficiency. They would fruitlessly attempt to fly daylight missions, after the Carrier Air Group commander did everything possible to prevent them from flying at night. The commanders of the carrier wished to be rid of the planes. The Communist air forces lacked the strength to attack an American carrier in daylight hours, much less at night.

K-6 was a perpetually rainy airfield that hosted a mix of Naval Aircraft. (USAG Humphreys)

After being effectively grounded aboard the USS Champlain, O’Rourke successfully petitioned for the unit to be sent ashore to join the Marine aviators. They settled into airfield K-6, alongside the 513th, and were quickly worked into their schedules. Settling in proved a challenge, as they traded their carrier berths for quonsets, at the rainy, muddy airfield outside of Pyeongtaek. They drew Marine fatigues, though rain gear was in high demand and low supply. It rained constantly and the airfield had a permanent muggy atmosphere, which made landing more difficult, and keeping dry an impossibility. The two were combined during the frequent airstrip overruns, when the planes rolled off the tarmac and into the mud. It was rarely a dangerous affair, though it was always a cold and dirty job dragging out the stuck aircraft. The Navy aviators would also soon learn that the Skyknight had been banned from most airfields in Korea, with the exception of emergencies, as its low mounted engines gouged holes in asphalt as easy as it had baked the wooden decks of the carriers.

The culture shock would also require a good deal of adjustment. Whereas the carrier was well regimented and ran with a clean and ordered efficiency, the Marine Corps was a force which took the odds and ends it was given, and made due. Perhaps the best example came down to how to cut the engine tail pipe to size, so as to have the exhaust be the right temperature. If it was too hot, the turbine blades could overheat and break, if it was too cool, it would not produce anywhere near the amount of thrust it should. For the adjustment, the Navy used a prescribed manual for the process, they turned the engine on, checked the temperature with a specialized gauge, turned it off and let it cool, cut a section, and repeated the process for several hours until the numbers matched the manual.

The Marines turned on the engines to full power, and checked the temperature using the cockpit instruments. If it was low, they shut off the engine, and took a pair of large pliers and bent crimps into the hot tailpipe to shrink the diameter of the outlet. They then turned it up again to full power until the temperature was at least 40 degrees above the book’s absolute maximum allowable temperature. With that, they marked a red line at the max and told the pilots not to exceed that unless they absolutely had to. Doing this made their planes some 20 to 30 knots faster than their navy counterparts, regardless of how much rougher they were. It was harder on the blades and tended to scorch the pipes, but O’Rourke felt the extra performance could make the difference when trying to catch MiGs that held a confident speed advantage. This kind of resourcefulness would prove a necessity from operating from K-6, as spare parts were scarce, especially for the aircraft’s fragile, complicated radar systems.

In the end, they came together, and the Navy and Marine Aviators would be fully integrated and billeted together, in the words of O’Rourke with “no bitching”.

Toward Armistice

Reinforced, the 513th continued its job of MiG chasing. Their job remained the same, and they still had the same issues. GCI services were overburdened, and the radar station on Cho-do island missed a good deal of contacts. While on patrol, the long search range of the AN/APQ-35 was particularly useful, and crews reported spotting numerous contacts that the GCI stations never called out. In comparison, the MiG pilots enjoyed excellent radar direction owing to good training, a larger number of ground stations, and a defensive operations which made for easier planning. Their ability to react to the American night fighters led a number of aircrews to believe the MiGs began sporting radar sets, though this was never more than a rumor.

The number of intercepts of MiG 15s declined, though the aggressiveness of the Soviet, and by then some Chinese, pilots remained. They were learning the strengths of the aircraft, primarily its much higher top speed, and the tried and true tactic of diving and staying low so that the plane would become lost in the haze of radar ground returns. While they were getting better at escaping the Skyknights, they lost their chance to chase the bombers. B-29 ‘Double or Nuthin’ was the last to be shot down on the night of January the 29th, with all but one crewman surviving the war.

The final MiG kill likely belonged to a Lt.Jg Bob Bick, who had been determined to claim a MiG since arriving at K-6. He did so with CPO Linton Smith on July 2, after pursuing a contact, firing, and setting it ablaze. His next message to his GCI director was that his aircraft had taken several cannon hits, and Bick’s plane fell off the radar screens at Cho-do. Bick had fallen into a MiG trap, and though he had claimed the bait plane, the trailing MiG had him. In a unit as small as detachment 44N, his loss was felt hard. A second Skyknight failed to return from that patrol area two nights later, though there were no radio communications, or Soviet records, that might suggest a cause.

There was a superstition amongst the 513th with aircraft that bore a 13. Note the mud emblematic of runway overrun. (smithsonian).

Having successfully shot down one of the Skyknights, the Soviet crews felt a burst of enthusiasm and doubled down on the bait tactic. Three or more trailing aircraft replaced the lone tracker, and they flew out more frequently. The bait plane too embraced their role and made themselves as visible as possible. O’Rourke claims to have chased a MiG flashing its navigation lights, and as he closed to ID the plane, his tail radar alerted him to six pursuing fighters. He promptly broke off the engagement. In the last months, they failed to claim any MiGs, but they had completely stopped them from intercepting the B-29’s. In the final tally, the Skyknights claimed six MiG 15’s, and lost one of their own in combat, with another possibly sharing its fate. There were another four losses, attributed to accidents.

A less dangerous, but much more frustrating threat came in the form of the harassment attacks from the so-called ‘night hecklers’. By 1953, these were training aircraft, usually Yak 18’s and the comically outdated Po 2 biplane. Unlike the Yak 9’s and Lavochkin fighters that Chinese and Korean aviators flew earlier in the war, these light aircraft could be flown from pastures, hidden with ease, and could be flown so low that long range radar stations could not detect them. Apart from raising alarms, a number of them carried out a successful strike against UN force fuel reserves at Inchon. They were otherwise a threat only to a good night’s sleep, as their bomb loads were extremely light, and they were not putting their best pilots in these disposable aircraft. In addition to the AAA gun crews who had not had any targets for months, the Navy’s night fighter squadrons were called in to deal with the ‘hecklers’. There was some excitement among the aircrews, as the prospect of a defensive intercept was a new mission.

Excitement soon turned to disappointment. The pilots of the 513th expected calls to scramble and chase down contacts, but what they got were long nights playing cards in their full flight suits in the summer heat. The ‘hecklers’ were undetectable by radar, and there was rarely a forewarning of their attack. The Skyknight itself was also unsuitable for it, as the disparity in speed between the two aircraft meant the pursuer rarely had a chance to fire before they had to break off the attack to avoid collision. The first heckler was shot down in December, brought down by 1Lt. Joseph Corvi and MSgt. Dan George. It was even more notable, as the conditions were blind, and the crew downed the Yak 18 non-visually, using their radar. Apart from another probable kill, there was little luck to be found against ‘bed check Charlie’.

To better deal with them, Corsair and Skyraider night fighters were brought into K-6 from aircraft carrier dettatchements. These aircraft were handier at low speeds and had much better loiter time, so they could stay airborne and search for much longer. When they did pick up the enemy, they could stay on them as they stuck close to the terrain.

As the war came to a close, and an armistice was fast approaching, both sides fought tooth and nail for where the final North-South demarcation would lie. While diplomatic talks were underway at Panmunjom, the Skyknight’s mission soon changed. B-29 escort missions were over, as were patrols over the Yellow sea. They were to patrol the frontline, which proved extremely disappointing to the crews who were accustomed to owning the night skies over Northern Korea. Oddly enough, in the last week of the war, they were also tasked with ground attack missions, a job once reserved for the squadron’s now retired F7F Tigercats.

513th Squadron members alongside an F7F Tigercat and an F3D Skyknight. For a time, the squadron was flying Corsairs, Tigercats, and Skyknights, but by the war’s end, they were a purely jet aircraft operation (Smithsonian)

For the members of the 513th, the war ended at 2200 hours July 27, 1953. They soon transitioned to training operations, and DMZ no-fly line enforcement. This marked the end of the Skyknight’s surprisingly exceptional role as a night fighter. As an aircraft that had failed miserably in its planned purpose, the air crews of the 513th found in it something that could take them deep into enemy territory, and hunt the most dangerous opponent the war had to offer. Of the two aircraft that posed a threat to the MiG-15, one was a brand new, cutting edge interceptor in the form of the F-86 Sabre, and the other was an underpowered night fighter designed weeks after the end of the Second World War. It was a remarkable tool to a squadron that proved itself extremely flexible, flying three aircraft it had no pre-war training with in a damp and unforgiving environment.

Obsolescence and Testing

The Skyknight’s would remain in limited use as fighters after the Korean War, retiring from the role in the mid 1950’s. (US Navy)

The Skyknight was a dated plane even before it saw use in Korea, and by the end of the war, it was totally obsolete. Aeronautics was progressing in leaps and bounds, new fighters were breaking the sound barrier and mounting much more sophisticated radar systems, far better than the then archaic APQ 35. The squadron that had made a name with the Skyknight, VMA-513, dropped its ‘Night’ suffix when it traded its Skyknights for the Douglas Skyray, a supersonic, all weather interceptor. As it was slowly brought out of combat service, some 200 Skyknights were available for new jobs.

This saw an expansion of the Skyknight’s secondary role, flight testing. In addition to general aerodynamic and safety studies, the cavernous sections of the aircraft once occupied by its radar systems could be repurposed to carry equipment for any number of tests. Perhaps the most important of these was for the carrier automatic landing system. The Skyknight was the first aircraft to carry the Bell ALS, and in 1957, one was used to test the system aboard the USS Antietam. The system was designed to help guide an aircraft on the approach within plus or minus thirty feet (9 m) longitudinally, and twenty feet (6 m) vertically, to the arresting wires on the carrier deck. Ironically, an aircraft that proved so terrible for carrier service played a major role in developing one of the most important systems for modern carrier aircraft.

A lone Skyknight prepares to test Bell’s automatic landing system. (Wikimedia)

Another major, if not quite as groundbreaking task the plane received was in testing early air to air missiles. Throughout the fifties, the first practical air to air missiles were introduced, and while they were not mature enough to totally replace guns, the Air Force and Navy pursued them, believing that they soon might. The Skyknight was chosen as the test aircraft for the Sparrow missile program, and while the weapon did mature into one of the most effective air to air weapons of its day, its first iterations were extremely crude. Sparrow I was a beam riding missile which was directed by the aircraft’s radar into the target. To test it, 28 F3D’s, both 1’s and 2’s, were converted into missile carriers, receiving between two and four wing pylons to accommodate the new weapons, and their 20 mm cannons were removed. These aircraft entered limited service with Marine fighter squadrons, and a proposal for an updated design to carry six missiles was introduced. Nothing came of the program, as the missile was incapable of hitting maneuvering targets and was generally unfit for use in combat.

The Skyknight’s tested, and very briefly employed the Sparrow I missile. They proved to be totally unsatisfactory, and the planes were soon relieved of the weapons (tail spin topics)

As important as missiles was the ever evolving field of electronic warfare. It was becoming ever more vital to know the positions of enemy radar installations, communications infrastructure, and, as would become vital later on, surface to air missile systems. The Skyknight was recognized as an ideal candidate for this kind of reconnaissance mission, as the removal of its radar systems left ample space for electronic surveillance equipment and radar jammers. One F3D-2 would be modified in 1955 and equipped with a panoramic surveillance radar, direction finding and analysis equipment, and a pair of 200 watt noise jammers. Two of its cannons were removed, with two remaining to give the aircraft some form of defense and to avoid weight distribution issues. The plane was modified at MCAS El Toro by two electronic warfare veterans, WO Joe Bauher and MSgt. ER Grimes.

While the Skyknight was far too obsolete to be a fighter, its forgiving handling and large electronics bays allowed it to shift effortlessly into the realm of electronic warfare. (aerocorner)

The prototype was soon joined by a second test aircraft and the pair were evaluated and refined at the Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake, and the White Sands Missile Range. They proved satisfactory and soon orders to convert 35 Skyknights to F3D-2Q, later redesignated EF-10B, electronic surveillance aircraft were approved. The first of the modified aircraft were received at the very end of 1956 and delivered to the Marine squadron VMCJ-3, with additional deliveries being made to VMCJ-1 through -3 in the following years. With its conversion complete, the Skyknight was to begin its second career.

Back in the Saddle

The first new deployment of the EW Skyknight began in July 1958, with VMCJ-3 rebasing to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan. While its original mission was to help with defensive electronic warfare training, it was not long until they were recruited into the Peacetime Aerial Reconnaissance Program, and used as a surveillance tool against the Soviets, Chinese, and DPRK in East Asia. Under the code name ‘Shark Fin’, the Skyknights flew offshore patrols to gather electronic data on radar stations and communication networks. Among the most crucial patrols were those around the Soviet Far East, though their patrols ranged all over the region, with forward deployments spanning from Tainan, Taiwan, to Misawa, in Northern Japan. Their first major find came in 1959, when they were the first to detect a modern Soviet P-12 ‘Spoon Rest A’ early warning radar which was based near Vladivostok.

Most of these patrols were well within international waters, though patrolling aircraft were still sent out to meet them. With the Soviets, it was a nearly carefree affair. While Skyknight and MiG pilots were engaged in a deadly cat and mouse game nearly a decade earlier, they made peaceful, routine intercepts over the Sea of Japan and its neighboring waters. One Captain Chuck Houseman would remember monitoring communications between a MiG pilot and his ground controller. When the fighter pilot asked what to do when the Skyknight’s ECMO began to take photos, his ground controller suggested he smile. On another occasion, in 1965, he flew with external fuel tanks which bore a message which, in Russian, read “JOIN THE US MARINE CORPS”. The joke was not appreciated in the higher echelons of his command, and the tank was soon painted over after they received complaints from the NSA. Soviet encounters were usually without issue, though the Skyknights would often try to avoid them by flying out over open waters and, with their twin 300 gallon (1135 liter) external fuel tanks, wait until the MiG’s ran low on fuel, before resuming their patrol.

Marine EF-10’s on the tarmac. They would convert 35 Whales for EW work. (aerocorner)

Flights near China and Korea proved far more challenging. They were met by pilots that flew far more aggressively, and on occasion, attacked patrols over international waters. While the Skyknight’s were never attacked, they always needed to be wary and tried to limit contact whenever possible. When avoidance was not an option, they were often escorted. Beyond this, the Chinese and North Korean air forces set up fake navigation beacons to try and throw off patrolling aircraft and lure them into their national airspace, where they could then be brought down. These dangers aside, no Skyknights were ever lost during these missions, and they recorded important data on Soviet radar systems.

With VMCJ-3 engaged in its Shark Fin operations in Asia, VMCJ-2 was working closer to home. Their job was to monitor Cuban military expansion flying patrols dubbed ‘Smoke Rings’, beginning in 1960. Unlike the relatively easy job of monitoring early warning radars in East Asia, Soviet technicians in Cuba were keen to keep their work under wraps, and shut down their systems if they thought they were being surveilled. This was soon noticed by the patrolling Marine aviators, who soon learned to fly under radio silence, and operate from less conspicuous airfields, particularly those in the Bahamas and Jamaica. Their work soon paid off, as in the next year, they detected the operation of a P-20 ‘Token’ radar system, used as a ground control radar for MiGs.

The Smoke Rings patrol work built up considerably as the situation in Cuba escalated after the failed invasion in the Bay of Pigs, which would lead to a significant Soviet military build up, culminating in the deployment of ballistic missiles to the island. During this period, the Skyknight’s would prove vital in uncovering, and confirming, the locations of SA-2 surface to air missile sites that would eventually prevent U-2 overflights of Cuba. When the missile crisis arrived, the Marine’s job would be to act as radar jamming support should the crisis turn into a conflict. Thankfully, they were never called upon for that task, though in the years to follow, they still patrolled the island to keep a picture of the situation, and to give new crews practical experience before they were deployed to Vietnam.

Vietnam

While the Marine Skyknight pilots were snooping along the seas of East Asia, and flying rings around Cuba, the US had become embroiled in the brutal civil war which followed the end of French control over Vietnam. Much the same as Korea, this war between two heavily militarized states would see widespread destruction, and a massive technological arms race. Airpower would be a major component to the US strategy, both seeing its traditional use, and a way to offset the considerable numerical disadvantage on the ground. It also proved a way to get around the DMZ between the North and South, which was created to prevent a direct invasion from either side. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam would weather a brutal air campaign with help from their patrons, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. At first, they had little more than anti-aircraft artillery and various light anti-aircraft armaments, but as was the case in Korea, the Soviet Union would step in and deliver the tools and training needed to build a formidable defense against American air power.

Much like the MiG-15 over Korea, the Soviet S-75 (SA-2) would prove a game changer that shifted the strategies for both sides. (Smithsonian)

The Soviets would provide aircraft, radar systems, and training personnel to build the Vietnamese People’s Air Force an effective GCI system to intercept American bombers. They began modestly, with a small force of MiG 17’s, a subsonic fighter with a gun armament. However, in 1966, the Soviet Union would begin to supply the more advanced, supersonic MiG 19, and the much more modern MiG 21. As impressive as the MiG 21 was, it did not cause the shake up that the deployment of the SA-2 surface to air missile did, which Vietnamese anti-air troops began training on in 1965. The system was robust, easily transportable by truck, and very effective for its day, with the Soviet Union supplying 95 batteries, and over 7000 missiles during the war. The triple layer of defenses, in which lower altitudes were covered by flak, higher altitudes by SAMs, and the MiG’s which were effective in both areas, proved to be a serious danger to American aircraft over northern Vietnam. However, there was a unified weakness that all of these systems shared and could be exploited. They all needed radar support to function.

The Skyknight’s would join a staggering number of aircraft involved with signals reconnaissance and jamming efforts, but among those providing direct support during Operation Rolling Thunder, it was the only major electronic warfare aircraft. Its partner was the EB-66, a faster, sleeker aircraft that boasted a more modern suite of jammers and signals intercept equipment, and was capable of airborne refueling. It was by far the more capable aircraft, but by the start of 1965, they were in short supply. Against them was a fledgling, but quickly growing network of North Vietnamese SAM batteries and ground control stations for MiGs.

The growing EW requirements of the US air strategy would put an intense workload on the Marine EF-10 pilots, while more advanced aircraft prepared to enter service. (Marty Lachow)

VMCJ-1 were deployed to the airfield at Da Nang in April of 1965 under the command of Lt. Col. Otis Corman, with six EF-10B’s and a complement of 93 men. While it might seem odd that so old an aircraft was being brought in for such an important job, both the Navy and Air Force lacked an aircraft that could fully replace it. While the SA-2 missile was known to them in the late 50’s, and had gone on to down U-2 spy planes, budget constraints and a lack of concern over the weapon stifled the timely development of a tactical jamming and signals intelligence planes that could work closely with strike aircraft. While the Navy was to receive the new EA-6A Electric Intruder, technical delays would see it deployed at the end of 1966. As it was, the Skyknight, now known almost universally as the ‘Whale’, was to play an important role in plugging the gap until more advanced aircraft became available.

The Whale’s flew their first missions on April the 19th, flying radar reconnaissance flights throughout Indochina. Their findings allowed them to plot the network of North Vietnamese early warning and fire control radars near their side of the DMZ. As the month came to a close, the air war took a turn when MiGs downed two F-105s. In response, the Whale’s were sent to suppress North Vietnamese ground control radars. Equipped with ALQ-39 jammers configured to counter the enemy’s early warning and flak directing radars, they flew ahead of strike groups, jamming and dropping chaff to confuse MiG ground directors. The EF-10’s were soon in high demand to support Navy and Airforce operations, and it was not long until they were working at a 300 percent higher rate than they were in peacetime. This was later decreased to 200%, but the crews and planes were still operating near their limits.

VMCJ-1 flew both the Skyknight, and the Mach 2 capable F-4R reconnaissance aircraft, representing some of the oldest, and most modern aircraft in US service. (Sam Gill)

DMZ patrols and jamming support continued routinely until the 24th of July, 1965, when an F-4C Phantom was shot down by an SA-2. While, previously, the sites were off limits out of concerns that killing a Soviet advisor might escalate the conflict, strikes against two SAM sites were authorized three days after the Phantom was downed. The mission, Spring High, involved the use of all six EF-10’s acting in support of a strike force of 48 F-105s. The Whales flew as screens for the F-105’s, jamming the radars used by the flak, SAMs, and MiGs. None of the strike aircraft were lost to radar guided assets, but six were lost to low level anti-aircraft fire.

One of the early challenges faced in these missions was the lack of a dedicated escort, which proved concerning, as the defenseless Whales were typically the first in and last out. While none were ever lost to MiG’s, aircrews were often concerned enough to set up informal escort flights with other Navy units. Such was the case with Chuck Houseman, who organized an escort flight with a squadron of Marine aviators who flew F-8 Crusaders from the carrier USS Oriskany. MiG’s aside, the greatest concerns were typically fuel related, as the planes were operating at the limits of their range and carried jammers and chaff dispensers on their wing pylons, where they could otherwise carry additional fuel.

By the end of the summer of ‘65, the SA-2 threat continued to evolve. Batteries sprouted up around the North, and their operators were honing their expertise on this new weapon. Facing the SAMs would require a new set of tactics that blended a mix of electronic deception and fast, aggressive flying. Named Wild Weasel, these strike aircraft were given the dangerous task of venturing into defenses designed to kill them, and tear them down. In this, the Whale was to play an early, vital role. While it had no real offensive capability, it could jam the radars of the anti-aircraft guns and SAMs, and use its signal analyzing capabilities to get a fix on their locations. They would accompany the flights of F-100’s, and later F-105’s, destined to attack the site directly and provide them with vital support. At this early chapter in anti-SAM tactics, most of the strike aircraft lacked the radar warning equipment that gave them an alert when they were being targeted. Until the devices began arriving in mass next year, one of the Whale’s most important jobs was simply to tell them when they were being targeted, and when they needed to go evasive.

In the fall, SA-2 networks and radar guided flak batteries had encompassed much of the North, and the job of the Whale’s grew more complex, and dangerous. The Vietnamese crews too were learning, often setting up several radar stations, while only using one of them to guide their weapons. The Whale’s performed well, but the limits of the aircraft and its equipment became apparent when they suffered their first and only loss to the SAM batteries. In March of 1966, the SAMs would finally catch one of the jamming aircraft, forcing a change in tactics.

With the prohibitions on their use near SA-2 sites, the Whale’s transitioned to supporting Naval operations along the coast. (Jerry Parks)

Following the incident, the EF-10 was no longer permitted within 20 miles (32 km) of a SAM site, and its mission area was effectively pushed out over the coast. This new patrol area would see them mostly supporting Naval operations, as the Navy would not possess their own jamming aircraft, the EA-6A, until the end of the year. The Whale’s new task was to fly in Navy strike aircraft toward the coast to screen their approach with jammers, while also taking note of the active air defenses over Northern Vietnam. They would prove essential, to the point that missions could be called off if no supporting EF-10’s were available.

The Whales would fly a much less conventional mission over Laos and Cambodia, where they aided in the project known as ‘Blind Bat’. In an effort to curtail the supply line known as the Ho Chi Mihn trail, the USAF outfitted several C-130H cargo aircraft with massive night vision devices. Using these, they hoped to spot the faint lights emitted by trucks and bicycle lamps as they made their nocturnal journey south to deliver supplies to the forces of the Viet Cong guerrilla fighters in the south. When the C-130 spotted something, it dropped illumination flares over it, and whatever was exposed would be attacked by the pair of B-57 Canberras which trailed the spotter. The fourth aircraft of the troupe was an EF-10, there to protect the others from radar guided AAA.

They flew off the wing of the C-130, with the two bombers following behind them. While they were never exposed to much of a threat from the ground, the Whale crews who flew these missions considered them the most dangerous during their entire combat tour. It is understandable, considering all four aircraft often flew in blacked out liveries, with a single navigation light atop the C-130 to provide reference between them. Poor weather and moonless nights were also common, as the porters along the trail knew they’d be hardest to spot in such conditions. Little was improved during a successful mission, as the flares and the exploding ammunition along the trail ruined the pilots’ night vision, leaving them to readjust as they turned for home.

End of Watch

By the end of 1966, the Whale’s replacement began to arrive in growing numbers. The EA-6A Electric Intruder was superior in every regard, but it proved unreliable as it went through a rough teething period as it was deployed to the theater. The first arrived at the end of October, ahead of a series of strike operations toward the end of the year. However, the new planes would not be able to do the job alone, and they were joined by the squadron’s venerable EF-10’s. A massive number of strikes were launched starting December 2nd, 1966, under the largest EW umbrella so far, consisting of six Intruders and ten Whales. While the Intruders could handle some of the more dangerous work, the Whales could cover transiting strike aircraft, and monitoring and jamming the growing number of radars for enemy AAA batteries.

A Super Whale departs the airfield at Da Nang. They are distinguished by the lack of any dorsal antennas. (Jerry Parks)

Even into the Autumn of the following year, the EA-6’s were still proving challenging to keep serviceable. It proved frustrating enough that the Corps decided to upgrade its Whale’s to bridge the gap until the Intruder’s readiness rates improved. The ‘Super Whale’ would feature a new broadband radar receiver, an ALR 27 radar warning receiver, and an improved panoramic display for detecting and classifying hostile radar systems. The new suite radically improved the crew’s ability to classify enemy systems and gave instantaneous missile launch warnings. The first of the modified planes was delivered in March, and crews soon flew them on their now familiar missions.

The eight Super Whales of VMCJ-1 continued to fly until September 1969, having been fully replaced by more modern aircraft. By the end of its service it was almost unique in its age, and its pilots often remarked on the fact that few airmen were assigned to something so eccentric. It was an aircraft designed with WWII era technology, and it made its pilots well aware of that fact. There were so few of them that the training materials for the aircraft were sparse, and no formal training program existed, so learning to fly and use the aircraft’s systems was an on-the-job affair. In a sense, each crewman familiarized themselves in their own way. A NATOPS manual was produced, but only near the very end of the plane’s combat tour in Vietnam. Many airmen felt pride in having mastered such an unconventional plane, especially one that flew quite well. Sentiments aside, they all knew it was an extremely obsolete plane kept flying by the kind of resourcefulness the Marine Corps is known for. The newest planes were almost twenty years old and had seen constant use in that time. The stockpile of parts was low, and there was not a single aircraft that was not completely wrung out. As fond of them as some pilots were, they were all happy with their new Intruders, and the Skyknight was finally retired in 1970.

Crew Remarks and Flying Characteristics

From the ground up, the Skyknight was designed to be stable, maneuverable, and to have no quirks in flying that might surprise the pilot. The designers were extremely successful in this regard, with pilots praising solid flying characteristics that some went as far as to call immaculate. Most contemporary jet fighters were known for being a handful, if not outright dangerous to fly, but with its hydraulically boosted controls, spoilerons, and positive longitudinal stability, it was an easy handling aircraft. Even over Vietnam, pilots found it a very forgiving, comfortable aircraft to fly. This being said, no one was ever much impressed by the look of the aircraft, with some pilots remarking that with its broad, flat wings, wide fuselage, and deep set cockpit, that Skyknight was a transport aircraft masquerading as a fighter.

A Skyknight crew prepares to depart. (National Archives)

It was, however, underpowered, having never received engines much more powerful than those on the prototypes. Its top speed was poor, and a fully loaded plane had a downright sluggish climb rate. While it was slow, this did not prevent it from scoring 6 victories against MiGs over Korea, and preventing the rest from chasing B-29’s. However, speed was not the primary issue, but rather reliability. These engines were fairly primitive turbojets developed from the first combat models. Engine failure brought down a number of these aircraft, and exploding turbines would prompt the fitting of armor plating to prevent shrapnel from traveling through the fuselage.

In its intended use as a carrier based night fighter, it was an almost total failure. The plane was simply too large and prone to mishandling by deck crews familiar with much smaller aircraft. It was also almost beyond the capabilities of the hydraulic catapults in use at the time, and accidents would result in serious damage being done to the system. The low cant of the engines scorched the wooden flight decks and ignited any flammable materials, resulting in fire alarms and a shut down of the flight deck. Thus, they could only be kept idling if positioned off the side of the ship. When they were later modified to correct for landing issues, they were controllable on the approach, and generally had good landing characteristics. However, the large flat windscreen was easily obscured by rain, and seaspray in poor weather conditions. The windshield wiper did little to improve visibility on the approach.

While the Skyknight might have been at home on the supercarriers which entered service in the 50’s, they were nothing but trouble on the WWII era carriers of their day. (smithsonian)

When deployed ashore, the issue of the low slung engines remained, and the exhaust was capable of warping, or boring holes, in tarmac. The position of the engines also made them vulnerable to foreign objects and debris on airfields, though this was amended with the use of intake covers which were removed when the aircraft was lined up on the runway. The aircraft was otherwise very capable when operating from airfields.

The Skyknight’s range was also rather short, given the high rate of fuel consumption from its crude turbojet engines. This was mostly resolved through the use of 150, and later 300 gallon (567, 1135 liter) wing mounted fuel tanks. However, in later electronic warfare missions, a jammer or chaff dispenser was often carried on one of the two wing pylons, shrinking the total fuel capacity of the aircraft. Over Vietnam, aircrews would occasionally fly with one engine off while they were transiting to stretch the endurance of the aircraft on longer missions.

The radar suite of the Skyknight was advanced, though its complexity did not lend itself well to ease of use or repair. The AN/APQ-35 featured a gun laying radar, which directed the pilot where to fire, a search radar, which the RO used to find targets, and a tail radar which warned the crew of pursuers. The radar presented information through three scopes.

The AN/APG 26 gun laying radar was the first with lock-on capability, automatically tracking a selected target. This feature was engaged by the RO, who centered the radar on the target and pushed a button. It was useful, but its position ahead of the search radar created a small blindspot. Some crews opted to remove the smaller device entirely to clear the blindspot, and many simply felt it was unnecessary given the high performance of the search radar which could be used to guide the pilot onto target.

The AN/APS 21 was a massive, cutting edge, and very complicated, search radar. It was a truly excellent piece of equipment, but was described by O’Rourke as being designed ‘by engineers that had never flown a plane’. The radar itself was not stabilized, and the plane of the scanning radar shifted with the positions of the aircraft. An RO also had to operate it within certain limitations. If set to a fast sweep at the widest angle, the dish would swing rapidly back and forth, destabilizing the plane and breaking itself. Broken radars were not uncommon given the fragility of vacuum tube electronics, with radar serviceability capping squadron readiness near 60% in Korea.

However, for all its quirks, it was an extremely impressive piece of engineering for its day. The radar was able to detect large contacts at 125 miles (201 km) and had an adjustable search angle that could be set as wide as 170 degrees. For all its trouble, it was worth it.

The massive tandem radar array of the APQ-35. (Jay Miller)

Lastly, the system had an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar which sat at the very end of the aircraft. It was very similar to the older APS 19 radar system found on Corsair night fighters, and thus very familiar to those who retrained for the Skyknight during the Korean War. It employed a small scope on the AN/APQ-35 console and displayed the position of contacts behind the aircraft up to four miles, with a crude approximation of their altitude, with the contact being noted as being as level, above, or below the aircraft. It also had a secondary display consisting of a quadrant of warning lights that would warn the crew of pursuers and their relative distance and position. In service, it was almost useless, as it was set off at lower altitudes and any friendly aircraft nearby, for instance, any B-29’s they might be escorting. The quadrant lights were thus typically removed and the RO would refer back to the dedicated AN/APS-28 radar scope every few minutes.

The AN/APQ-35 suite was later removed when the Skyknights were converted to electronic warfare aircraft, replaced with an EW kit comprised of a panoramic surveillance receiver that displayed the direction of radar and communications systems. It was fed information by a radio direction finder, and a pulse analyzer for identifying radar emissions. The original system used a once quite sophisticated APR-13 receiver, which displayed information on an oscilloscope, and a direct audio output of the radar transmission, to classify and give the direction of ground based radar systems. This allowed the ECMO to identify and locate any number of radar stations, though this took a good deal of work. The Skyknight proved to be a groundbreaking EW platform, but for its crews, this meant dealing with cutting edge yet crude equipment.

Being from the 1950’s, the system was a cumbersome affair that required its operators to manually set operating frequencies and offered no automation of any kind. It could surveil enemy radar systems and provide missile launch warning for friendly aircraft, however, it was nearly impossible to do both at once. Thankfully, in roughly its last year of service, the Marine Corps replaced the analogue EW suite with an APR-33 threat receiver, an ALR-27 missile launch warning system, and a new panoramic display which displayed the entire range of Soviet and Chinese radar frequencies. The new system took a lot of work off the ECMO and automatically warned them of a missile launch, representing a comprehensive upgrade.

Operating the aircraft’s jammers, both on-board and those on the pylons was a relatively straightforward affair. In Vietnam, this virtually always meant using wing mounted ALQ-31 pods that could carry two jammers that were configured to counter different radar systems. While the Skyknight was pulled from the SA-2 jamming mission, it proved very helpful in jamming AAA fire control radars. Crews often remarked that anti-aircraft fire became totally inaccurate once the jammers were in range of the enemy radar system.

Construction

The Skyknight was a solidly built aircraft with a conventional construction. It featured a very wide, monocoque fuselage with folding, mid level, two spar wings. The front of the aircraft contained the search radar or electronic warfare equipment, and the armament, all enclosed in a fiberglass cone. The engines were contained in low slung nacelles within the fuselage, behind which were the airbrakes. At the rear of the aircraft was a conventional stabilizer configuration, with a tail warning radar at the very back of the aircraft. The aircraft had a fully retractable tricycle landing gear arrangement with a deployable tailwheel to prevent tail strikes.

Armament and fuel stores (Standard Aircraft Characteristics)

The wings of the aircraft were of conventional construction, though it saw an early use of hydraulically boosted control surfaces. Combined with a set of spoilerons added to the production series of the aircraft, its roll rate was excellent and maneuverability was retained at high speeds. With the fuselage air brakes allowing for the pilot to prevent overshooting a targeted aircraft, or avoiding overspeed, the plane was remarkably controllable in all aspects of flight. They were designed to fold just beyond the outboard pylons.

The final engine of the aircraft was the Westinghouse J34-WE-36. It produced up to 3,400 lbs (1542 kg) of thrust, leaving the aircraft fairly underpowered. Attempts to re-engineer the aircraft were canceled when the J46 never became available. The J34 was a development of the J30, a WWII era jet engine, and was largely obsolete before entering service due to the rapid strides in turbine development after the Second World War. The engine was an axial compressed turbo jet, with 11 compressor stages, and two turbines. In its early service, it was fairly unreliable and dangerous, as the turbines could break and send their blades through the fuselage, into the second engine. Armored deflectors were thus installed early in its military service. The engine ran on 115/145 octane AVGAS, and not jet fuel, a feature which seriously highlighted its obsolescence in later years.

The console for the APQ-35 contained all of the controls and displays for the three radar systems; it proved compact, but complicated to use. (Pilot’s Handbook)

The Westinghouse AN/APQ-35 radar suite comprised three self contained radar units, being the X-band AN/APS-21 Search radar, AN/APG-26 gun laying radar, and AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The search radar was by far the largest unit and presented a maximum instrumented range of 200 nautical miles for ground contacts. In airborne use, it could detect targets out to a range of about 120 nautical miles. Its scan area could be adjusted in terms of elevation, and had an adjustable horizontal search angle between 30 and 170 degrees. The search radar sat in tandem with the gun laying radar, with the smaller system ahead of the main unit. The gun laying radar had a maximum range of 4000 yards (3657 m) and was activated by aiming the search radar onto the target and engaging the lock feature. The smaller radar would then automatically track the locked target and adjust the aircraft’s gunsight to give an accurate lead. The tail warning radar had a range of 3 nautical miles and was fixed. The console had three scopes, being a plan position indicator scope, an azimuth scope that gave directional guidance toward the target, and a tail warning scope. Long range target information was displayed on a large plan position indicator scope which was used exclusively by the search radar, while the azimuth scope was shared with the gun laying radar and used to guide the pilot on the final approach to the target.

On the electronic warfare model, the radar suite was replaced by a collection of radio emission monitoring equipment, jammers, and countermeasure dispensers. The original EW suite consisted of an APR-13 panoramic surveillance receiver, replaced in the early sixties with the ALR-8, which included a APA-69A direction finder, and an ALA-3 pulse analyzer. The direction finder and the receiver each had their own console and were used to track and classify actively emitting radar systems. The ALR-8 could monitor most of the Soviet, and Soviet derived, radar systems of its day. This was done with a pair of oscilloscopes, one circular in the case of the panoramic indicator, the other linear in the case of the pulse analyzer, and a direct audio output of the radar emission. These gave the direction and pulse width of the radar system respectively, while the audio output could also be used to identify the pulse width and type of radar system. Each had their own distinctive tone, occasionally allowing for easy classification. A constant pulse rate indicated a fire control type system either directing a SAM or anti-aircraft gun batteries.

EW suite changes, the Super Whale setup is on the right. (EF-10B NATOPS)

These systems were seriously overhauled with the Super Whale upgrade under AFC 199. This included a panoramic ULA-2 indicator console which displayed the directions of all emitting radars, and no longer required the ECMO to manually search frequencies. Defensive upgrades included an APR-33 fire control monitor receiver and an ALR-2 missile launch warning receiver. These upgrades automated much of the ECMO’s workload, and allowed for the aircraft to perform missile warning duties while also investigating radar emissions.

Originally, the aircraft was only equipped with a pair of ALR-2 200 watt jammers, which were acceptable through the 1950’s, but totally inadequate for use over Vietnam. They were typically supplemented by outboard jammer pods and countermeasure dispensers. They often carried an ALQ-31 pod that could fit two jammers, which were typically configured to jam the early warning radars used to provide GCI for MiGs, and fire control radars for anti-aircraft batteries. The other major EW tool was the ALE-2 chaff dispenser, which could be used to create metallic, radar reflecting clouds of aluminum strips. Other avionics included VHF radio communication systems, a UHF radio, a VHF beacon homing receiver, a radio altimeter, and a radio compass. These systems were upgraded throughout the Skyknight’s long career, and new systems, like equipment to use the Tactical Air Navigation System, were added.

The Skyknight’s armament consisted originally of four Hispano Suiza M2 20mm cannons with 200 rounds carried for each weapon. The pilot was provided with a radar directed Mk. 20 Mod. 0 gunsight which could provide automatic targeting for a locked target. On electronic warfare variants of the aircraft, the armament was reduced to two weapons, retained for balance and self defense purposes.

A variety of ordnance could be carried on the outer pylons, being unguided bombs up to a weight of 2000 lbs (907 kg) per pylon. The 11.75” ‘Tiny Tim” rocket could also be mounted, though it is unlikely they were ever used, as only a handful of ground attack missions were carried out with this aircraft near the end of the Korean war, and only with unguided bombs. The pylons were otherwise used only for carrying 150, or 300 gallon fuel tanks (567, 1135 liters), in addition to the electronic warfare equipment described above.

The Skyknight featured more creature comforts than most other navy fighters by the time of its design. It was air-conditioned, its floors were carpeted, and an electric cigarette lighter was installed in the instrument panel, with ashtrays at the crew’s elbows. It was perhaps the only fighter aircraft to be equipped with a built-in cigarette lighter. However, it was not retained on the EF-10 and the engineers at Douglas removed it when they were updating the instrument panels. Both crewmembers were provided with urinals in the form of relief tubes for use on long flights.

F3D escape diagram. (Pilot’s Handbook)

The escape system consisted of a chute positioned between the crewmen, and at its end was a panel which would be ejected by means of explosive bolts. The crew would then use a bar over the opening, at the rear of the cockpit, to hurdle themselves down the chute and clear the plane. It was effective, though it meant that one could not safely bail out of the aircraft below 2000 ft. Crewmen who ditched the aircraft were to escape via the roof panel, which also doubled as the means to enter and exit the plane.

Conclusion

A preserved Skyknight, ironically stored aboard the USS Intrepid. (Tony Inkster)

In spite of failing in its original goal almost completely, the Skyknight’s career in the Marine Corps saw it become the unsung hero of two wars and earn the respect of its crews. It seems almost impossible that an ungainly nightfighter rejected for its original use could have ever brought down cutting edge MiG’s, made the Air Force’s B-29’s untouchable, or claim the night skies over North Korea for its own. Yet in the end, the Marine’s made due, and ‘Willy the Whale’ became one of the most successful fighters in the theater. Beyond this shocking combat debut, it almost effortlessly transitioned into an entirely different role, surveilling radar systems and providing electronic support for US forces in the technological cat-and-mouse race over Vietnam. Developed in an age when planes had their operational life spans measured in months, the Marine Corps flew the Skyknight for almost twenty years, a testament to its ruggedness and versatility.

F3D-2

Specification

Engine Westinghouse J36-WE-36
Engine Maximum thrust 3,400 lbs (1542 kg)
Fighter weight internal stores only 24,614 lbs (11,164 kg)
Fighter with 2 x 150 gal tanks 26,731 lbs (12129 kg)
empty weight 14,898 lbs (6757 kg)
Combat Range [with external fuel] 1,195 nmi
Combat Range [internal stores] 995 nmi
Maximum Speed 426 kts @ 15,000 ft (4572 m)
Cruising Speed 395 kts
Combat Ceiling 35,000 ft (10,668 m)
Armament 4x 20 mm Hispano Suiza M2 cannon
Crew 1x Pilot

1x Radar Operator

Length 45′ 5″ (13.84 m)
Height 16′ 1″ (4.9 m)
Wingspan 50′ (15.24 m)
Wing Area 400 sq.ft (37.16 m2)

Variants

F3D-1 (F-10A): First production version, J34-WE-34 engines. 28 built.

F3D-2 (F-10B): Improved, final production model. J34-WE-36 engines, lock on capability, General Electric G-3 autopilot, wing spoilers. 237 Built, final aircraft built in March of 1953.

F3D-1M: Sparrow missile testbed.

F3D-2M (MF-10B): Four missile hardpoints, no cannons. Brief service life. 16 converted from F3D-2s.

F3D-2Q (EF-10B): Electronic Warfare Aircraft. 35 Converted from F3D-2.

F3D-2T: Night fighter trainer. 5 converted.

F3D-3: Proposal, swept wing night fighter with J46-WE-3 engines.

Illustrations

 

VMF(N)-513, Korean War. During their combat tour ,The Flying Nightmares developed a superstition around aircraft numbered 13. The crew of this aircraft improvised an alternate number.
VF-14, USS Intrepid, 1954. The Top Hatters were among the last squadrons to fly the Skyknight as a night fighter. They quickly transitioned to more modern fighters.
VMCJ-1, Da Nang, Vietnam War. in 1967, all of the in-theater EF-10B’s were upgraded to ‘Super Whales’. They continued to serve for two more years before being phased out by more modern aircraft.

 

Credits

  • Article written by Henry H.
  • Edited by  Stan L.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrated by Hansclaw

 

Sources:

Primary:

“Eyes In the Night”. Naval Aviation News. V33-34 1952-1953.

Pilot’s Handbook Navy Model F3D-2 Aircraft. Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief Bureau of Aeronautics. 15, July 1952.

NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model EF-10B Aircraft. Chief of Naval Operations. 1 April 1969.

Night Fighters Over Korea. G.G. O’Rourke with E.T. Woolridge. Naval Institute Press.

Standard Aircraft Characteristics F3D-2 “Skyknight”. 15 February 1952.

Secondary Sources

F-3D/EF-10 Skyknight Units of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Joe Copalman. Osprey Publishing. 2022.

F-105 Wild Weasel vs SA-2 “Guideline” SAM. Peter Davies. Osprey. 2011.

All Hands. No. 648-658. 1971.

Naval Fighters Number Four Douglas F3D Skyknight. S. Ginter.

Korean Air War Sabres, MiGs and Meteors 1950-53. Michael Napier. Osprey. 2021.

Naval Aviation News, Obituary Heidemann, Jan-Feb. 1992.

Skyknight. R.E. Williams. Naval Aviation News. 1983.

Into the Jet Age: Conflict and Change in Naval Aviation , 1945-1975. E.T. Wooldridge. Naval Institute Press. 1995.

A History of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 531. Colonel Charles J. Quilter II and Captain John C. Chapin. History and Museums Division Headquarters, US Marine Corps. 2001.

US Marines in Vietnam High Mobility and Standdown 1969. Charles R. Smith. 1988.

Sparks over Vietnam The EB-66 and the Early Struggle of Tactical Electronic Warfare. Captain Gilles Van Nederveen. College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and education. 2000.

Aircraft Carriers a History of Carrier Aviation and its Influence on World Events Volume II 1946-2005. Norman Polmar. Potomac Books. 1969.

Kaman SH-2F Seasprite

United States of America (1974)

Anti-Submarine & Utility Helicopter

190 total airframes built: 85 converted to SH-2F w/ 48 new airframes.

A SeaSprite takes on fuel aboard the Destroyer USS Briscoe. (National Archives)

Introduction

Kaman’s SH-2 proved an exceptional asset for the US Navy through the mid to late Cold War, serving a variety of roles across nearly the entirety of the surface fleet. Beginning its service as a multipurpose naval helicopter designed to ferry equipment and rescue downed fliers, the light helicopter soon played an even greater role as an anti-submarine aircraft. Replacing the outdated and clumsy DASH drone, the Seasprite incorporated cutting edge sensors to become a sub chaser that could fit on even the lightest modern frigates in the US Navy. Spanning the early sixties to the new millenium, the Seasprite served as an able light transport, search and rescue, and anti-submarine helicopter before finally being phased out by the UH-60 Seahawk.

Whirlybirds

Of all the world’s navies, that of the United States was the first to employ helicopters enmasse. While helicopters had undergone considerable development since the first usable designs had been conceived in the 1920s, they remained a clumsy novelty into the 1940s. This was until the Sikorski R-4 was developed. Igor Sikorski, born in the Kiev Governorate in the reign of Alexander II, was already an aviation legend before the Russian Civil War saw him emigrate to the United States in 1919. Having previously designed four engine biplane airliners in the Russian Empire, and several of the flying boats that saw Pan Am span half the globe, Sikorski was a name known for breaking new ground. His R-4 helicopter would build this reputation further. The greatest advantage the R-4 had over its foreign contemporaries, most notably the Focke-Anchleis 223, was its simplicity and ruggedness. The use of a main lifting rotor and anti-torque tail rotor would prove a far lighter, and more robust method of control than the transverse and intermeshing rotors that drove a number of contemporary types.


Igor Sikorskiy (right) aboard a test flight of his R-4 helicopter (wikimedia).

The R-4 reached the notice of the US armed forces through Commander William J. Kossler of the Coast Guard, after the officer had seen the XR-4 undergo a test flight in April 1942. Impressed, he invited fellow officer CDR W.A. Burton to see the helicopter. The report on the aircraft took note of its ability to conduct patrols at low speeds, and unlike US Navy airships, did not require a large hangar for storage. Initially skeptical, the Navy was later convinced of the aircraft’s anti-submarine and convoy surveillance properties. Limited production began in 1942 and testing was conducted through 1943 and ‘44, though its sub chasing capabilities were not pursued. Instead, the helicopter proved itself as an air rescue vehicle. Its first trial came on January 3, 1944, when it delivered vital blood plasma from New York City to Sandy Hook, New Jersey, through a violent storm, in order to treat sailors after a fire had sunk the destroyer USS Turner. In all, several dozen R-4s would be delivered to the Coast Guard and Navy, where they took part in a number of rescue missions across North America and the Pacific.

While the R-4 was still limited in its carrying capacity and presented pilots with challenging flight characteristics, it demonstrated the utility of helicopters to every branch of the US armed forces. Sikorski would capitalize on this over the coming decade with their heavy H-19 and H-34 helicopters. Entering service in the early fifties, these helicopters were all metal and equipped with heavy radial engines. In civilian and military service, they would prove exceptional, capable of airlifting cargo to otherwise unreachable areas. However, a new, revolutionary advancement would soon render them obsolete. In 1955, the French Allouette II became the first production helicopter to feature a geared gas turbine. The turbine provided a far better power to weight ratio than the radial engines, and it was compact, allowing it to be placed at the center of the helicopter and thus avoided the forward engine placement that made some earlier helicopters nose heavy. This engine also allowed the nimble Alloutte to possess a speed and range far beyond comparable piston engined models. From then on, it was clear that turbine power would be the future of helicopter design.

 

A Sikorsky ‘Choctaw’ helicopter hovers to recover astronaut Alan Shephard and a Mercury reentry capsule after the first manned US space flight. The addition of a powerful radial engine made these among the first successful heavy lift helicopters. (wikimedia)

In the US, the first experiments for this type of helicopter propulsion were pioneered by Charles Kaman’s aircraft company. The first successful experiment was achieved through combining the Boeing 502 turbine with his company’s K-225. Kaman, a former employee of Sikorsky, would develop this new helicopter along with his head designer, Anton Flettner, a German engineer who pioneered the use of intermeshing rotors. The experimental K-225 proved promising enough to warrant further development, and soon, the Kaman Aircraft company would produce a new utility helicopter along its lines. The firm’s HH-43 Huskie fire fighting and rescue helicopter fit the bill, and its later models were equipped with turboshaft engines in the late 50s.

 

However, the firm’s greatest success was soon to arrive, when the navy sent out a request for a new carrier-borne, lightweight helicopter.

Seasprite

The US Navy’s request for a light multipurpose and rescue helicopter was soon met with Kaman’s newest design, the Kaman Seasprite. The helicopter would settle the requirements, being capable of carrying up to 12 people, remaining compact and fuel efficient, and taking up little space aboard aircraft carriers. In the 1956 competition, Kaman’s design won handily and the next year saw a contract issued for procurement. The helicopter was the first Kaman design to feature a single main rotor, and in conjunction with the servo-flap rotor system, it was cutting edge, reliable, and possessed smooth flight characteristics.

The design, then named HU2K, first flew on July 2, 1959, and was introduced fully in December 1962. It proved to be robust with good handling, however, the single General Electric T58GE turbine left it fairly underpowered. This prevented it from taking on any new missions, but it was sufficient for the basic role it was designed for. These helicopters, later designated UH-2A and UH–2B, though largely identical, were produced until 1965, with a total of 142 airframes built.

A Kaman UH-2A/B flies alongside the USS Enterprise as a plane guard as it launches a Grumman E-2a Hawkeye. (wikimedia)

The Seasprites, supplied to utility helicopter squadrons, were distributed amongst US aircraft carriers and saw widespread use during the Vietnam War. There, they served largely as plane guards, where they took up a position alongside aircraft carriers when large scale air operations were underway. In case of an accident during take off or landing, the Seasprites would move in quickly to recover downed pilots. Search and rescue also fell under their purview, and alongside a number of other models, they pulled hundreds of airmen from the sea. As a fleet utility helicopter, they also flew ashore and between various vessels in order to transfer personnel and equipment. Medical evacuations were also among tasks these helicopters performed, moving injured personnel to ships with more substantial medical facilities. The small size and smooth controls of the Seasprite made landing on the basic helicopter facilities of most ships an easier affair compared to the bulkier Sikorsky Sea King. Its only drawback was the relatively little power offered by its small turbine engine. It could make for tricky takeoffs as the small helicopter was slow to climb.

In spite of it being underpowered, it proved to be a valuable asset to the fleet and was respected by its pilots. Naturally, the Navy wished for improved models. Kaman’s first move was to add a second turbine engine to the helicopter, the improved model being the UH-2C. As the production run had already been completed, the Navy sent Kaman the older A and B models back to the company in order to receive the upgrade. The C model was introduced in 1966, though now with its much higher speed and carrying capacity, it was soon deemed that the Seasprite was to take on a much wider scope of duties.

Sub Chaser

During the late sixties, the increased threat posed by ever more advanced models of submarines was of great concern to the US surface fleet. Even more concerning was a lack of long range anti-submarine weapons. While many ASW vessels did carry the ASROC missile, tipped with either a nuclear depth charge or a Mk 46 torpedo, there was some concern of submarines attacking from beyond the 6 to 8 mile range of this weapon. The existing long range anti-submarine weapon was the Gyrodyne DASH drone, a small drone helicopter capable of carrying depth charges and torpedoes. While it was compact, it was inflexible, and with no means of collecting additional data in the area of the suspected submarine, accuracy was very poor.

The UH-2D was an interim ASW model to test the helicopters ability to carry the equipment needed for the role. These are differentiated from the later 2F’s by their tail wheel being further out. This aircraft lacks the sonobuoy rack. (wikimedia)

This left most of the US Navy’s light surface forces, which often operated too far from the carrier to be covered by its airborne ASW umbrella, under threat from more modern submarines. The solution was found in the re-engined Seasprite. The new SH-2D represented the greatest change thus far, with the new aircraft sporting a chin mounted surface search radar, a rack to carry a Mk 46 lightweight torpedo, and a 15 chute sonobuoy rack. The small size of the helicopter would allow it to operate aboard some of the lightest frigates in the fleet, these being the Garcia-class.

The performance of the helicopter, and its ability to operate on nearly every major surface combatant, would see this mission expanded even further. Thus came the Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System, a fleet-wide program to equip most warships with helicopters in order to boost their anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities. LAMPS I would place a now standardized SH-2F aboard nearly every frigate, destroyer, and cruiser in the fleet. In addition to the long standing utility missions, the helicopters were datalinked to their host ship to allow them to prosecute possible submarine contacts, provide long range surface surveillance, and allow for more effective over the horizon targeting of enemy surface threats.

The new SH-2F was largely the same as the proceeding UH-2D model, though it standardized the use of composite rotor blades which existed on some previous models, and its tail wheel was moved forward to enable it to better operate off of smaller ships. Some 85 Seasprites were converted to this type, and a further 48 were produced in the early 80s in order to cover a shortfall before the introduction of the SH-60B Seahawk. The new, standard LAMPS helicopter entered service in 1973.

LAMPS I

The LAMPS I program vastly increased the offensive and surveillance capabilities of participating vessels. This encompassed some half dozen ship classes ranging from the workhorse frigates of the fleet, such as the Knox and Oliver Hazard Perry, to the nuclear guided missile cruiser, Truxton. In the ASW mission, on detecting a suspected submarine, whether attacking or transiting, the ship would launch its SH-2F. Capable of using sensor data from the ship, the helicopter would move in and begin to deploy its sonobuoys, being either passive AN/SSQ-41’s or active AN/SSQ-47’s. The helicopter then relayed the sonobuoy data back to the ship for processing, and if the contact was found and classified, the helicopter would move in to attack with its Mk 46 torpedo. The onboard magnetic anomaly detector could also mark the position of a submarine if over flown by the helicopter. A ship equipped with ASROC could also join the helicopter in the attack, provided the target was in range. In the ASW role, the helicopter was a largely reactive measure, as it was unable to process its own sonobuoy data and lacked a dipping sonar, and thus required other platforms to detect the submarine first. This is not to say it lacked considerable offensive potential, as the powerful hull mounted sonar arrays aboard the Knox class frigates and Spruance class destroyers, and the OHP’s short range but highly sensitive sonar, were among the most advanced systems of their kind and could give early warning to submerged threats. The presence of the helicopter thus allowed ships to prosecute, classify, and engage submerged contacts that would otherwise be beyond the effective range of their sensors and weapons.

The Spruance class Destroyers were among the most capable anti-submarine warships used during the Cold War. With their advanced sonar systems and two helicopters, they could pose a serious threat to even the most modern nuclear submarines. (National Archives)

The Spruance class in particular could prove very dangerous to submarines at range thanks to its convergence zone sonar. The AN/SQS-53 could make use of the aforementioned phenomenon, and under ideal conditions, detect submarines at extreme ranges. These zones are where sounds are bounced off the seafloor or thermal layers into a concentrated area and are thus made dramatically louder. Convergence zones are exploited by all ASW vessels, though the specialized sonar aboard these ships allowed them to exploit sound propagated at distances far in excess of the norm. A Spruance class ship making use of a convergence zone could dispatch helicopters against submarines potentially dozens of miles away, making them among the most capable ASW vessels of the Cold War. In the absence of a convergence zone, it switched to a short to medium range mode. It shared this system with the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser, and the Kidd class destroyer, both of which used the same hull, however their role was air defense. These ships all transitioned to LAMPS III once it became available in the mid 1980s.

The LAMPS system featured most prominently in escort and screening vessels, namely the Knox and Oliver Hazard Perry (OHP) class frigates. The Knox class was an anti-submarine frigate with limited anti-surface capability that entered service in 1969, with 46 vessels being commissioned in all. These ships carried a single Seasprite and were armed with an ASROC launcher, which later received the capability to launch Harpoon anti-surface missiles. The OHP class carried no ASROC launcher, though they instead carried two helicopters. The last 26 of the class were LAMPS III ships and carried the heavier and more capable Sikorski Seahawk. In place of the ASROC launcher was a Mk 13 mod 4 launcher for Standard missiles and Harpoons. Both frigates carried hull sonar and towed arrays, the Knox possessing a larger hull array, and the OHP carrying a short range, high resolution hull sonar system, with a towed array being used for longer range surveillance. The difference in systems was due to the OHP being designed as a fast escort, and needed the capability to conduct passive sonar searches at speeds faster than a typical surface group. The resulting hull sonar system was thus highly sensitive, but had a decreased maximum effective range.

The Knox class was initially classified as a destroyer escort and later designated as a frigate. For mid to late Cold War vessels, they were very capable anti-submarine patrol vessels for their size with good anti-surface capabilities, featuring both a dual purpose ASROC-Harpoon launcher and a LAMPS I helicopter. (wikimedia)

In addition to the added anti-submarine mission, the Seasprite performed anti-surface support and anti-ship missile defense roles. In performing these missions, the Seasprite used its search radar to track and identify potentially hostile surface vessels. This allowed the host vessel to build a picture of enemy forces while putting itself in comparatively little direct danger. With this information, any LAMPS I vessel had early warning against potentially hostile surface vessels, and could also use the relayed information to more accurately fire Harpoon and Standard missiles over the horizon, without using its own radar and revealing itself. The extended surveillance range of a LAMPS vessel was pushed beyond 170 miles with the use of the Seasprite.

LAMPS I thoroughly improved the anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities of much of the US fleet, with the Seasprite itself being an almost perfect off the shelf solution. While there were limitations, like the inability to perform an independent ASW search, the overall benefit of the ship not needing to prosecute sub surface contacts alone or having to reveal itself to perform a radar search in its patrol area was well worth the resources devoted to the Seasprite.

Late Career

Beyond ASW duties, Seasprites also allowed their host vessels to conduct surface surveillance over a much wider area. Here, an SH-2F identifies a natural gas carrier during Operation Desert Shield. (National archives)

By the end of the Cold War, the Seasprite had incorporated a number of improvements. These comprised a number of on board and weapon systems, perhaps most notably the introduction of the Mk 46 Mod 5, or NEARTIP, lightweight torpedo. The new model was designed to counter the latest advancements in Soviet nuclear submarine design, with the torpedo possessing an improved engine to make for a higher speed, an improved sonar transducer to increase the effective detection range of the weapon and add better countermeasure resistance, and had a new guidance and control group. The new weapon entered service in 1979, with kits being produced to convert old stocks to the new standard.

An improved model of the helicopter equipped with T700-GE-401 engines was also developed in 1985, though few were procured, as the Navy sought to increase supplies of the SH-60 Sea Hawk. Some of the improvements from the scaled back Super Seasprite did however make their way into the SH-2F. A number of LAMPS I helicopters during the mid 80s were equipped with FLIR pods for IR searches, IR jammers, chaff and flare dispensers, and an infrared sea mine detection system. Their service during the Gulf War saw them mostly perform ship to ship material and personnel transfers, mine detection, and medical evacuation roles, as Iraq possessed no submarines. Their primary mission in the theater was mine hunting duties, for which they used IR sensors in their search. They were only carried aboard lighter surface combatants during Operation Desert Storm, and weren’t present among the air wings of any of the aircraft carriers during the conflict.

After almost thirty years of service, the SH-2F was withdrawn along with most of the vessels that carried them. Its end was hastened by the withdrawal of the Knox class frigates from service and the sale of most of the short hull OHP frigates to foreign navies. The Navy would fully transition over to the Sikorsky Seahawk, a much larger and more powerful helicopter which carried two torpedoes, a dipping sonar, and incorporated sonobuoy processing capabilities.

Construction and Flight Characteristics

The Kaman SH-2F Seasprite was compact, and while conventional for a modern helicopter, was very advanced for its day. Its fuselage was watertight, possessed forward retractable landing gear, and was equipped with a variety of onboard sensors. While it could not perform waterlandings, its sealed canopy allowed it to float until the helicopter’s crew could be recovered. The pilot sat on the port side of the cockpit and the copilot/tactical coordinator, who operated the weapon systems, was seated starboard. The systems operator sat behind the pilot and operated the sonobuoy dispenser, the magnetic anomaly detector, and radar system. The systems operator lacked the equipment to process the sonobuoy data, which was instead processed aboard the LAMPS I host vessel and sent back via a data link.

An SH-2F instrument panel (wikimedia).

At the nose of the helicopter was the LN-66 surface search radar, designed for detecting both surface vessels and submarine snorkels. On the starboard pylon was the MAD streamer which worked in conjunction with an extendable antenna on the underside of the helicopter. This system worked by measuring the local strength of Earth’s magnetic field, and would spike if it encountered a large magnetic object, or in other words, a submerged submarine. Triggering a readable detection required the aircraft to over fly the contact and was thus typically used to pin the exact position of the submarine while preparing to attack after closing in during the sonobuoy search. The Seasprite carried a mix of AN/SSQ-41A passive and AN/SSQ-47B active sonar sonobuoys. The AN/SSQ-41A omni-directional passive sonobuoys operate at a depth of 60 ft for shallow searches and 300 ft for deep, and have a frequency range of 10 Hz to 20 kHz. Depending on their settings, they lasted between one to eight hours. The SSQ-47B active sonobuoy provided ranging information and operated at either 60 or 800 ft and possessed a maximum endurance of thirty minutes. Sonobuoy data was processed aboard the supporting ship and was used to localize submarine contacts that were otherwise too distant or quiet to be effectively tracked by the ship’s sensors alone. The information provided from the data link allowed the helicopter to detect, classify, and engage subsurface contacts in cooperation with the host vessel.

Re-detecting a submarine at longer ranges from the ship was difficult, as passive sonobuoys laid out in a large search pattern gave little chance of success. The best chances of re-detection on a lost contact was when it was near the surface, transiting, or maneuvering to avoid attacks from other vessels and aircraft. The standard procedure for sub chasing was to head down the azimuth of the ship’s sonar contact and to begin to lay a sonobuoy field to uncover its exact location.

The Systems operator station. To the left is the MAD readout, in the center is a scope for the surface search radar, and on the right is the (shuttered) sonobuoy display. (National archives)

The Seasprite was initially powered by a single General electric T58-GE-8F turboshaft before a second was installed on the UH-2C. These each produced up to 1,350 shp and allowed the SH-2F to travel at a top speed of 152 mph at sea level and allowed the small helicopter to carry up to 2000 lbs worth of equipment in the vertical replenishment role, with a maximum cargo hook capacity of 4000 lbs. To save fuel during emergencies, the helicopter could run on one engine on the way back to the ship. These engines were well regarded and considered very reliable.

The helicopter’s lift was provided by a 44 ft main rotor which used composite blades which were directed with servo operated flaps. These flaps are easily visible on the rotors, each having a wider chord than the rest of the blade. The flap is used to change the angle of attack of the rotor in flight and allows for smooth altitude adjustment. The anti-torque rotor at the rear of the helicopter had its blades increased from three to four going from the C to D model. The Seasprite handled well and was easy to perform a hover in, an important capability when it comes to search and rescue, and transfers to vessels without any landing areas. This was particularly important when landing on Knox class frigates, which both had significant air disturbance aft of the ship, and a very claustrophobic landing area.

In the air rescue role, the copilot would coordinate with divers and rescue crew. The cargo space of the helicopter could fit two stretchers or three seats. For water recovery of personnel, divers were carried aboard and recovered downed airmen through the use of a rescue hoist mounted on the starboard side of the helicopter. Mechanically driven, it had a capacity of 600 lbs.

Throughout the 1980’s, Seasprites were often equipped with a variety of new devices. This aircraft features two ALQ 144 IR jammers for missile defense, chaff and flare dispensers, and a FLIR imager. Crews also often removed the doors from these helicopters for faster entry and exit. (National Archives)

The Seasprite could carry a variety of unguided weapons, but rarely carried anything other than the Mk 46 torpedo, being either the Mod 0, or Mod 5 NEARTIP during the 1980s. On paper, the Seasprite could carry two torpedoes, but in practice, the second equipment position was taken up by an external fuel tank on ASW patrols. Both torpedo types measured 8.5 ft long with a diameter of 12.75 inches. The Mod 0 weighed 568 lbs, and both carried a 95 lb warhead. The Mod 0 possessed a maximum speed of 45 kts, with the NEARTIP being considerably faster. The NEARTIP provided better tracking of faster targets and better countermeasure rejection, having incorporated a new sonar transducer, control and guidance group, and a new engine which switched from solid propellant to liquid monopropellant. Prior to the introduction of the Mod 5, there was little hope for successful attacks against the fastest nuclear submarines of the 1970s. However, in confirming the location of a submarine, its position also became revealed to long range ASW aircraft which could make follow up attacks.

Other weapons included unguided 2.75 inch unguided rockets, and some rare, late examples possessed FLIR optics and could carry AGM-65 Maverick missiles. These weapons, however, were rarely ever carried. Later Seasprites carried a variety of countermeasures including an ALQ-144 tail mounted IR jammer and an ALE-39 flare and chaff dispenser. A considerable number of these helicopters were equipped with infrared jammers and flares during the 1980s.

Conclusion

An SH-2F is being used to evacuate a sailor who received severe burns, necessitating treatment off-vessel. (National Archive)

The Kaman Seasprite can be said to be among the most versatile aircraft ever operated by the US Navy. Entering service as a plane guard, the number of roles it served grew considerably over the years to encompass everything from medical evacuation, to anti-submarine duties. As the core of the LAMPS program for nearly 10 years, it gave US warships a boost in their offensive and defensive qualities against both surface and subsurface opponents.

Specification

SH-2F Seasprite Specification
Engine 2x General Electric T58-GE-8F
Output (maximum) 2300 SHP (2700 SHP)
Maximum Weight 12800 lbs
Empty Weight 8652 lbs
Range for Utility 234 N.MI
Radius of Action for Utility 111 N.MI
Endurance for Utility (ASW) [Ferry] 2 hours (1.9 hours) [2.8 hours]
Standard Armament 1 Mk 46 Mod 0/5 Lightweight torpedo
Crew Pilot, copilot/tactical coordinator, systems operator
Length of fuselage 40.5 ft
Width of fuselage 10 ft
Designation Sub type
HU2K/UH-2A Basic single engine utility helicopter
UH-2B Minor differences in avionics, later made identical to A model
UH-2C First two engine model
H-2 Army project, single engine
HH-2C Combat rescue model, 7.62 side door gun emplacements, M134 rotary gun turret. Two engines.
HH-2D Same as HH-2C but without armament. Used to test ASW equipment and loading. Two engines.
NUH-2C/D Test helicopter, two engines.
YSH-2E Testing helicopter for radar and ASW gear for canceled LAMPS II program
SH-2D Early ASW model
SH-2F Standard LAMPS I helicopter
SH-2G SH-2F with T700 turboshaft engines, improved avionics. Small production run.
Avionics Type
Surface Search Radar LN-66HP
IFF AN/APX-72
Transponder Computer KIT-1A/TSEC
UHF Radio Set AN/ARC-159
Secure Speech KY-28
ICS AN/AIC-14
TACAN AN/ARN-52
Doppler Radar AN/APN-182
Attitude Heading AN/ASN-50
NAV Computer AN/AYK-2
Plotting Board PT-492
UHF Direction Finder AN/ARA-25
OTPI R1047A/A
Radar Altimeter AN/AP-171
RAWS AN/APQ-107
Sonobuoy receiver AN/ARR-52
Acoustic Data Processor AN/ASA-26B
Data Link AN/ASK-22
Magnetic Anomaly Detector AN/ASQ-81
Radar Warning Receiver AN/ALR-54

Profile:

The SH-2F Seasprite was a simple, but excellent conversion of a proven airframe. Installed aboard much of the US surface fleet, it was a potent force multiplier.
During the mid 80’s, the Seasprite fleet received a number of improvements. These included the ALE-39 countermeasure dispenser, the AN/ALQ-144 IR jammer for use against heat seeking missiles, and later FLIR optics.

Gallery:

 

The Knox class’s helicopter facilities were quite claustrophobic, and precluded the use of a larger helicopter. (National Archive)
A forward view of a Seasprite aboard a Spruance class Destroyer. (National Archives)
Despite its small size, the Seasprite could carry a considerable sling load between vessels. (wikimedia).

A Knox class frigate during a visit to La Roche, France with its LAMPS helicopter on deck. Curiously, this ship’s Sea Sparrow launcher has been removed. (Wikimedia)
The colorful MAD streamer. (Wikimedia)
A Seasprite responds to a medical emergency aboard a freighter near a naval exercise. (National Archives)

A Seasprite flies as a plane guard alongside the USS America. An Essex class refit carrier sails in the background. (National Archives)
An SH-2F undergoes checks aboard the USS Iowa during the Northern Wedding naval exercise, 1986. (National Archives)

A small number of combat rescue helicopters were converted to recover airmen from potentially dangerous coastal areas. In practice, the nose mounted gun was typically not retained. (wikimedia)
With its rotors folded, the crew of the USS John Hancock prepare to stow their Seasprite. (National Archives)
A snapshot taken by a Seasprite: Soviet Submarine K-324 and frigate USS McCloy (Knox class) were engaged in mutual surveillance when the submarine’s screw became entangled in the frigate’s towed sonar array. The emergency was responded to by the Soviet oceanic survey ship SSW 506 and the American destroyer USS Peterson. The K-324 was a Victor III class nuclear submarine, this type being the most numerous modern Soviet nuclear submarine of the late Cold War.

Credits: 

  • Article written by Henry H.
  • Edited by  Stan L. and Henry H.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Godzilla

Sources

Primary:

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model SH-2F aircraft. NAVAIR 00-110AH2-8. Commander of the Naval Air systems Command. July 1974.

Andrews, Harold. Sea Sprite. Naval Aviation New 1983 (Feb).

Naval Aviation News 1985 (May-June)

Naval Aviation News 1983 (Jan-Feb & May-Aug)

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1982 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, on S. 815.

Department of Defense appropriations for 1984 hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session / Subcommittee on the Department of Defense.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1986 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session, on S. 674.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1979 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, second session, on S. 2571

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1980 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session, on S. 428.

CDR Rausa Rosario. LAMPS MK III. Naval Aviation News 1980 (June).

Defense Department authorization and oversight hearings on H.R. 5167, Department of Defense authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1985, and oversight of previously authorized programs before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session.

Secondary:

Polmar, Norman. Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. Fifteenth Edition. US Naval Institute Press. 1993.

Sikorsky HNS-1 “Hoverfly”. United States Coast Guard.

Stuyvenberg, Luke. Helicopter Turboshafts. University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering. 2015.

Garcia Class Frigate. NAVsource online.

Ikarus 214

Yugoslavia flag Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1948-1967)
Multi-Role Twin Engined Aircraft – 23 Built

The Ikarus 214 [otpisani.niceboard.com]
After World War Two, the new Communist Yugoslavian Air Force Command began a long process of restoring the destroyed aviation industry. The first attempts were made in the late 1940s, when several new and experimental designs were built, including the Ikarus 214. While most of these would remain prototypes or be built in small numbers, they would serve as a base for future developments and the experience gained would be used in the following years.

History

The first steps towards rebuilding the new Communist Yugoslav aviation industry were made during the war on 24th October 1944. Negotiations with representatives of many pre-war aircraft manufacturers about the possibility of reviving the devastated aircraft industry were held at Zemun near the capital city of Belgrade. Many pre-war aircraft industry designers and engineers would survive the war, and would be used to form the base of the future Yugoslav aviation industry.

Ikarus 214 D Prototype in Flight [paluba.info]
Two years later (23rd February 1946), the Aeronautical Technical Institute created a competition for the development of four new designs. One was for a flying school and tourism aircraft, while the others were for a two-seater basic trainer, an advanced trainer, and a multi-seat trainer version that could potentially be used as a transport plane. The Aeronautical Technical Institute was a pre-war institution which was responsible for placing orders and monitoring new aircraft development. During the period of 1947 to 1952, several different designs, including the maritime role, what would become the Ikarus 214, were produced. 

Constructor Group No.5, under the leadership of the aircraft engineer and professor Sima Milutinović, received orders to design a light two-engined transport and bomber crew trainer aircraft under the military designation 214. After the calculations and drawings were completed, the production of the first prototypes began in 1948 at the Ikarus factory. By 1949, two prototypes were completed and were designated 214P and 214D.

Name

The original military designation of this plane was simply 214. After the first two prototypes were built, the manufacturer’s name, Ikarus, was added to the designation. However, some sources call it the type 214 or simply the 214. This article will use the 214 designation for the sake of simplicity.

Technical Characteristics

The 214 was designed as a low wing, twin engine, mixed construction plane. Despite being primarily intended as a transport and trainer plane, the 214’s fuselage was designed to be able to withstand bomber duties. The fuselage had an unusual design and was built by combining two monocoque “sandwiches” (two light skins placed around a thick core) shell construction (same as on the British de Havilland Mosquito which was in use with the Yugoslavian Air Force.) The 214’s fuselage was large and had plenty of room for use as a transport or passenger aircraft.  The 214 passenger version had 7 seats placed behind the pilot’s cockpit. On both sides of the fuselage, there were two rounded and two elongated windows. The 214 (except the later built 214PP and AM-2) had a large and fully glazed round shaped nose with good all round forward visibility.

The Improved 214AM-2 Anti-Submarine Variant
The 214 prototypes were powered by the weaker Ranger SVG-770C engines.

The wings were made of wood and consisted of two box shaped longerons. The whole wing was covered with birch glue. The twin tail vertical and horizontal stabilizers were also made of wood. The rudder and the elevator were made of duralumin and covered with canvas.

The first engine used by the two prototypes was the air-cooled Ranger SVG-770C providing 520 hp, with the two-bladed Hamilton standard type propellers. The second prototype, and all subsequent aircraft were equipped with the stronger nine-cylinder air-cooled Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1, which delivered 600 hp. Four fuel tanks were placed in the wing longerons, with a total fuel load of 780 liters (206 gallons.) The 214 used B-95 gasoline as its main fuel.

The Ranger SVG-770C Engine [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]
The landing gear retracted (except on the first prototype) into the rear engine nacelles but was not completely covered. The rear tail wheel was fixed but was provided with a brake system. The landing gear was hydraulically driven.

The pilot’s cockpit was positioned above the front fuselage and provided a good all-around view. In the cockpit there were positions for two crew members (pilot and assistant) and dual controls which were connected with the rudders and elevators with wire. However, this flight control system was flawed, because it took a few seconds before the plane responded to the command given by the pilot, for example during turns, climbs, or descending maneuvers. This made the 214 particularly difficult to fly during harsh and bad weather. 

The front glazed nose provided a good all around forward view.

Inside the cabin were several flight instruments, such as the airspeed and altitude indicators (type Teleoptik 456-6 and 452, the 214AS version had two altitude indicators), two variometers (type Teleoptik 26B), a turn and slip indicator (type 441-0), a horizontal situation indicator (type Teleoptik 32C, the 214AS version was equipped with two), a magnetic compass (type 443-0), two engine tachometers, fuel and oil gauges, landing gear indicator, and thermometer. Additional equipment for the crew’s safety included parachutes, fire extinguishers, oxygen bottles, and heating & ventilation. In the first series of aircraft produced in 1958, a SCR-522 radio unit was installed This radio had 8 watts of power with a range of 50-290 km (30-180 mi) depending on altitude. The 214F version was equipped with a Rudi Čajevac radio-telephone.

One of the prototypes was armed with three 7.92 mm MG-15 machine-guns, one forward fixed, one on the side (not specified whether  it could be aimed) and one in the rear facing turret. The decision to use older captured German MG-15s was most likely based on the fact that the 214 was to be used as a trainer aircraft, with better and more modern armament reserved for front  line aircraft. The 214 could also be equipped with a bomb load of four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. Weapons were rarely installed on the production versions, as they were used mostly for transport.

First Test Flights

The 214 made its first flight on 7th August 1949, at the Zemun airfield near Belgrade. Immediately, there were problems with the lack of an adequate retractable landing gear. As a temporary solution and to speed up the testing process, the engineers simply reused the landing gear from an Il-2 (which was in use by the Yugoslav Air Force), but for technical reasons it was not retractable and remained fixed. There were also problems with inadequate propellers, as the 214 prototypes had to use propellers designed for a single engine aircraft. Despite the fact that it was never intended to be used with a fixed landing gear, military officials demanded that the flight tests begin as soon as possible. During its first test flight, one of the two engines simply stopped working. The pilot made a turn back towards the airfield, but the 214 could not maintain altitude and the plane crashed killing the test pilot Lieutenant Sima Nikolić.

An investigation that was subsequently conducted found that the fixed landing gear and the poor choice of propellers created too much drag. The single working engine could not overcome this drag. In addition, the vertical tail surfaces proved to be inadequate.

Prior to this accident, the engineers and designers predicted, at least in theory, that the 214 could maintain a constant altitude with only one working engine. In case of such a scenario, the test pilots were instructed to fly to the large and open Borča field,  Belgrade, and land there. Why the pilot decided to return to Zemun airfield instead of proceeding to the instructed field was impossible to determine. Despite this accident, the development of the 214 would go on.

The second prototype was fully completed by December 1949. In order to avoid accidents, the second prototype spent almost two years being redesigned and tested. Unfortunately, there is no information about any flights made during this period, but it is possible that some were conducted. This plane received larger vertical tail surfaces and a new landing gear. More intense flight tests were made from 1951 on. During this time, different trainer configurations were tested. These were basic training variants with three crew members and no armament, a bomber training variant with four crew members with up to three machine guns and bombs, and as a passenger transport variant with two crew members, six passengers, and no armament.

The Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1 became a standard production engine on the 214. [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]
During 1954 and 1955, the second 214 prototype was equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1 engines. It made its first flight with these engines on the 16th of September 1955 without any problems. In 1957, the second prototype was modified for use as a photo-reconnaissance aircraft (serving as the basis for the later 214F variant). This prototype would be used in this role until September of 1959, when the plane was lost in an accident. 

In 1955, it was decided to put the 214 into limited serial production. It  began in 1957 (or 1958 depending on the sources) and, by the time it ended in 1960, a total of 21 (or 20 depending on the source) 214 planes were produced. 

Anti-Submarine role

In 1958, a decision was made by the Yugoslavian Air Force for the adaptation of the 214 for anti-submarine operation. The first series of 214s produced was allocated to the 97th Air Regiment (this unit was renamed into the 97th Anti-Submarine Regiment in November 1958). The first group of pilot officers from the 97th Air Regiment was moved to Zemun airfield for training on the 214 in October 1958. All pilots from the 97th Air Regiment (which was equipped with British de Havilland Mosquitos) completed training by July 1959. In the period of 1959 to 1960, there were 41 pilots in training, but the number was reduced to 25 in 1961 and 1962. The entire training process was carried out under the leadership of World War II veteran Captain Okanović i Semolić.

As the 214 lacked any equipment for anti-submarine operations, it could be used only in reconnaissance missions, and only weather permitting where visibility was good. In 1960, there were plans to improve the 214’s anti-submarine performance by adding the necessary equipment. One modified aircraft, under the new 214PP (No. 61004) designation, was tested by Captain Petar Savić on the 6th of May 1960. Two years later, a new anti-submarine version, 214AM2 (No.61015), also known as 214M-2, was tested in June 1962 by pilot Aleksandar Prekrasov. Both versions had a fully enclosed nose instead of the standard glazed one (the sources are not clear, but it appears that other 214  were also equipped with an enclosed nose). In addition, the 214AM2 was provided with a radar placed below the front nose. However, this improved version was still not up to the task of anti-submarine duties. Even if the crew spotted an enemy submarine, it could hardly do anything. Due to equipment delays, more extensive testing was not possible before 1963. The 214AM2 was tested in Batajnica (near Belgrade) and later in Pula on the Croatian coast. The tests of the 214AM2 were completed by 1965, and the results of these tests assessed the variant as partially successful. 

Even before these tests were completed, in May 1964, by the order of the Secretary of National Defense, the 97th Anti-Submarine Regiment was reorganized as 97th Auxiliary and Support Regiment and supplied with C-47 transport planes. The 214 was still in use with this unit but mostly in a transport role. This decision to remove the 214 from the anti-submarine role was based on the fact that they were not sufficiently equipped, and could not effectively engage submarines. The 214 would be used by this unit up to 1966, when they were removed from service.

The 214F 

Front view of the 214F version.

In 1960, three aircraft, designated as 214F, were built in the Ikarus factory to be used as photo-reconnaissance planes. The main difference was the removal of the seats inside the plane’s fuselage and replacing them with positions for a cameraman, his assistant, and  camera equipment. 

Limited Operational Service Life

Despite being designed to fulfill several different roles, the 214 (beside the two anti-submarine modifications) was mostly used as a light transport and sometimes for day and night bomber crew training. The aircraft that were used in this role received the 214AC or 214P designations and, in total, 18 were built of this version. The basic transport and training variant had 7 seats placed behind the cockpit, with four on the right, and three on the left side. In some sources, the passenger number is listed as 8. The idea to use the 214 as a light bomber was rejected due to the rapid development of more advanced fighter-bombers. The 214 had many technical problems during its operational use, such as inadequate radio equipment, problems with the control of the wing flaps, inadequate electric equipment for night flights, and cracks that would appear in the propeller spinners after extensive use. 

A parachute group in front of a 214 prior to take-off. [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]
Rear view of a 214. The Yugoslav flag (blue, white and red with a red star in the middle) was often painted on the tail. [otpisani.niceboard.com]

The 214 was mostly used by the Yugoslavian Air Force as a transport plane.

In Civilian Service

By 1966, only six 214 transport versions were still operated by the Yugoslavian Air Force. The next year, these six were withdrawn from service and given to the Aeronautical Association of Yugoslavia for use. They were registered as passenger planes with two crew members and seven passengers. These received the following civilian markings based on their stations: YU-ABN in Ljubljana, YU-ABO in Vršac, YU-ABT in Novi Sad, YU-ABS in Zagreb, YU-ABR in Sarajevo and YU-ABP in Skopje.

In 1968, only four were listed as operational and, by 1970, they were removed from the civilian registers. While they remain stored, some parachute flights were carried out after 1970. In the following years, all except one were scrapped. This aircraft (No.60019) was given to the Yugoslav Aviation Museum near the Capital of Belgrade in 2001. The plane is in a poor state of repair and is waiting for restoration. Due to the financial difficulties of the museum, there is only a small chance that it will be restored in the near future.

This is a civilian 214 stationed in Sarajevo. [paluba.info]
The only surviving 214 (No.60019) aircraft can be seen in the Belgrade Aviation Museum. [Wikipedia]

Production Run

As previously mentioned, the decision for the production of the 214 was made in 1955. By the time the production ended in 1960, a small series of 21 aircraft was produced (excluding the two prototypes.) Many sources state that around 20 were built but, according to Č. Janić. and O. M. Petrović, 21 were built (18 214AC and 3 214F). The problem with determining the exact number of produced aircraft lies in the fact that, in some sources, the three produced 214F include the prototype which was modified for this role. Despite the fact that the production began during 1957 (by Ikarus), the whole process was slow and, by the 1st of January 1959, only six 214 were built. Only one was built in 1957 and an additional five during 1958. By January 1st 1962, there were 21 aircraft in service with the Yugoslavian Air Force, with 17 fully operational. In the following years, there were no accidents and an average of between 15 and 18 were fully operational at any given time. In order to increase the 214’s operational service life, one additional factory (Vazduhoplovno-Tehnicki Remontni Zavod) was opened in Zagreb for the production of spare parts and repairs. The Ikarus factory, due to its  involvement  in other projects, was  exclusively involved in the production of spare parts from 1962 to 1964.

Due to the small numbers built, the 214 had only a few different variants.

  • 214P and 214D prototypes – Two prototypes built and tested with different engines.
  • 214F – 3 built as photo-reconnaissance planes. 
  • 214AC (214P)Main production version. 18 were built as trainer/passenger planes.
  • 214PPOne production aircraft was modified for anti-submarine operation.
  • 214AM-2One production aircraft was modified as an improved anti-submarine variant.

Conclusion 

Despite not being a successful design, the 214 did see operational use in the Yugoslav Air Force. As only small numbers were built, the model’s role was limited. The 214’s greatest success was that it helped rebuild the destroyed Yugoslavian aircraft industry and the designers and engineers gained additional experience in working with more modern aircraft designs.

Ikarus 214 Specifications

Wingspan 53 ft 2 in / 16.2 m
Length 38 ft 9 in / 11.2 m
Height 13 ft  / 3.95 m
Wing Area 320 ft² / 29.8 m²
Engine Two nine cylinder air-cooled P&W R-1340-AN-1 with 600 hp
Empty Weight 3,740 lbs / 3,970 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 11,080 lbs / 5,025 kg
Fuel Capacity 780 l
Maximum Speed 227 mph / 365 km/h
Cruising speed 186 mph / 300 km/h
Range 670 mi / 1,080 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 23,000 ft / 7,000 m
Crew One pilot and One copilot
Armament
  • Three 7.92 mm MG-15 Machine Guns
  • Bomb load of four 50 kg bombs

Gallery

Illustrations by Carpaticus

Ikarus 214
Ikarus 214AM-2 Anti-Submarine Variant
Ikarus 214 in Civilian Service

Credits

 

Northrop’s Early LRI Contenders

USA flag old United States of America (1953)
Long Range Interceptor Proposals [None Built]

Detailed drawing of the N-144, with cutaway section

Born from the Long Range Interceptor program, the first of Northrop’s contenders were three aircraft that had large delta wings and overall similar shapes and designs. The first, the N-126, started as a modified version of Northrop’s F-89D Scorpion fighter but would become its own unique aircraft by 1954. The second, the N-144, was a large four-engine interceptor design that dwarfed current bombers of the time and could carry an impressive arsenal. The third, the N-149, differed the most from its two siblings. It was much smaller and used General Electric engines over Wright engines. The N-144 was the most successful out of the entire program, but would prove to be too costly and a maintenance nightmare if produced. The N-126 and N-149 would also not meet expectations, as did none of the other competitors in the doomed program.

The LRI Competition

At the start of the Cold War, it was realized that if a Third World War would ever happen, defending the mainland United States from airborne threats would be a top priority. ICBMs and nuclear missiles are the go-to threat everyone imagines when they think of the Cold War, but these wouldn’t be operational until the late 1950’s. In the early years, nuclear weapons would be deployed by strategic bombers and these would be the major threat. Intercepting these long range aircraft would be of the utmost importance if the war went hot in the 1950’s. Developing an aircraft able to reach these bombers and destroy them led to the creation of the modern interceptor. Most countries had begun developing an interceptor of their own. At the forefront was the United States Long Range Interceptor program (LRI). This program originated in early 1952, with Major General L.P. Whitten of the Northeast Air Command noticing that a capable aircraft would be able to takeoff and intercept enemy bombers using the warning time of the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, which was an integrated defense network of SAM, radar and fighters across the US and Canada, able to intercept enemy bombers well before they were able to reach the United States. Although the idea was put out, no official requirements for the idea came about until December of 1953, when the Air Council put out extremely demanding needs. The aircraft would need to be airborne in two minutes from getting the scramble alert. Maximum speed would be Mach 1.7 with a range of 1,000 nm (1,850 km). Combat ceiling would be 60,000 ft (18,000 m) with a climb rate of 500 ft/min (150 m/min). The aircraft would be minimally armed with forty-eight 2.75 inch rockets, eight GAR-1A Falcon AAMs or three unguided nuclear rockets. This requirement became known as Weapon System WS-202A. Most companies developed submissions, but McDonnell and Northrop had an early start with a long range interceptor design being conceived very early on, well before an official requirement had been requested. Northrop had three aircraft designs that would fit the requirement for WS-202A; the N-126, N-144 and N-149. All three were visually similar to each other and shared concepts and equipment with one another.

Northrop N-126: The Delta Scorpion

Bottom view of the N-126 Delta Scorpion model [US Secret Fighter Projects]
The first of the designs Northrop submitted was the N-126 Delta Scorpion. This aircraft actually began development months before an official requirement was put out. The design was submitted in February of 1953 and was essentially a Northrop F-89D Scorpion modified with a new delta wing design and Wright YJ67 engines. The aircraft received a performance review sometime in 1953 along with McDonnell’s two-seat version of the F-101 Voodoo. Neither design was chosen for production. The N-126 did show promise, as it came close to meeting the very first requirements and it was supported by the Air Defense Command. However, the predicted first flight in twenty-one months was a bit too optimistic and the design was disliked by the United States Air Force Headquarters, as it didn’t exactly meet requirements compared to the F-101 variant. Northrop pushed this early design and adamantly tried to acquire production.

Front quarter view of the N-126 Delta Scorpion model [US Secret Fighter Projects]
They were quick to begin working on an improved design that would be longer and yield better results. It took over fifty concept designs before they found a suitable improvement. The aircraft itself no longer resembled the F-89D Scorpion it got its name from, but the name would stick until the end of the project. This new design was submitted in August of 1954. The N-126 was now much sleeker, with a forty-five degree delta wing and two underwing Wright J67-W-1 engines (Allison J71-A-11 engines were a weaker alternative choice). The delta wings all three projects used provided lower weight than generic straight wings and minimized drag. The trailing edge of the wing would have a split speed brake on the outer surface, an aileron located in the middle and a feature on the inboard section only referred to as an “altitude flap”. For the landing gear, a bicycle configuration with two wheels on each gear would be mounted directly under the aircraft, with a smaller landing gear being placed under the wings.

For armament, the aircraft would use the required eight Falcon AAMs and forty-eight rockets being mounted in a 20 ft weapon bay. Four external hardpoints would allow extra ordnance to be carried, such as bombs or extra missiles. Alternative loadouts included any combination of four AIR-2A unguided nuclear rockets, six Sidewinders, or two Sparrow guided missiles. The N-126 would use the Hughes E-9A fire control system, one of the few remnants carried over from the F-89. The E-9A would be linked to a long-range search radar that would have a range of 100 nm (185 km). For fuel, one large internal tank and two smaller tanks in the wings would hold 4,844 gal (22,025 l). Extra drop tanks could be mounted under the wings and offer an additional 1,600 gal (7,275 lit). For its predicted mission, the N-126 would be able to launch and engage enemy bombers twenty-seven minutes after scramble. Northrop expected a prototype would be ready for a first flight by June of 1957.

Northrop N-144: The Monstrous Interceptor

Color photo of the N-144 model [US Secret Fighter Projects]
The N-144 was the second design Northrop submitted. It was made to offer the best results in regard to the WS-202A requirements. It resembled the N-126 but was much larger and had four J67 engines. The N-144 dwarfed its siblings, competitors, and even several current bombers of the time. With a wingspan of 78 ft and a length of 103 ft, this was no small aircraft. In comparison, the Convair B-58 supersonic bomber had a wingspan of 56 ft and a length of 96 ft (interesting to note, a plan to convert the B-58 into a long range interceptor was proposed).

Its appearance wasn’t the only thing carried over from the N-126. The E-9A fire control system, its accompanying scanner, and its landing gear design (now with four wheels on the main gear) were all reused in the N-144. The N-144 also had a forty-five degree delta wing like the N-126. The N-126 and N-144 would both have their engines on pylons on the wings. This configuration allowed much more powerful engines to be used and a simpler intake system compared to having the engines be built into the body, not to mention the layout being much safer in the event of a fire.

Top down view of the N-144 model. Note the 45 degree delta wing [US Secret Fighter Projects]
The N-144 utilized many features that would directly improve the aerodynamics of the aircraft. The aircraft would have low wing loading which would increase its cruise altitude and improve takeoff and landings. The addition of a horizontal tail, which isn’t often seen in delta wing designs, gave the N-144 improved handling and stability over designs that lacked the horizontal tail (see the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger for example). When the aircraft would be supersonic, the wing would have a chord flap that would retract into the wing to reduce drag. Area ruling was a feature involving tapering the center of the fuselage which would reduce drag while the aircraft was flying at supersonic speeds. Most current delta wing designs utilized area ruling, but none of Northrop’s interceptors surprisingly did. Northrop ruled that the advantages would only affect supersonic flight, and not provide anything useful during subsonic flight. Having no area rule also made the aircraft simpler in design and easier to produce. Northrop’s studies into the delta wing expected to see performance increase as time went on, with more modifications and better engines being used on the N-144 if it went into production. With these expected improvements, Northrop theorized a 14% improvement in top speed and service ceiling.

Frontal view of the massive N-144 model. The size of its engine pods are evident. [US Secret Fighter Projects]
For armament, the N-144 would still utilize the standard eight Falcon AAMs and forty-eight rockets, but could also carry twelve Falcon AAMs, six AIR-2A Genie (Ding Dong) rockets, 452 2.75 in FFAR rockets or 782 2 in (5.1 cm) rockets internally in any order. External hardpoints could also be fixed for carrying bombs or more ordnance. For fuel, a large fuel tank would be in the wings and fuselage and could carry 6,910 gal (31,419 l) of fuel. Given the size of the aircraft, Northrop advertised that it could be used in alternative roles.

Northrop N-149: The Opposite End

Model of the N-149. The additional fuel tanks can be seen. [US Secret Fighter Projects]
The N-149 was the third and final design submitted by Northrop for WS-202A. Submitted in July of 1954, the N-149 was almost the polar opposite of the N-144. Instead of opting for raw power and utilizing four engines, the N-149 was meant to be the smallest option available while still performing just as well as its competitors. In comparison, the N-126 would be 85 ft (25.9 m)long with a wingspan of 62 ft (19 m), while the N-149 would be 70 ft (21.5 m) long with a wingspan of 50 ft (15.5 m). This size decrease would save cost, space and fuel consumption. The N-149 used the same wing layout as the previous entries and would also retain the E-9A fire control system and accompanying radar. Given the advancements of the N-144’s wings, it is likely the N-149 would also benefit from them as well. The N-149 did not use Wright J67 jet engines like the N-126 and N-144, but would instead use General Electric J79 engines. These engines were longer than the J67 but would benefit the aircraft, given its small size, to achieve the required speed and rate of climb. The bicycle landing gear with outer wing gear was once again used, but now with two wheels on each gear like the N-126. The armament for the N-149 was less than its predecessors, but it would make up for weapons in the amount able to be built. Once again, eight Falcon AAMs and forty-eight 2.75in rockets were standard, but alternative armaments would be a single Sparrow AAM, four Sidewinder AAMs, another 105 2.75 in rockets or 270 2 in rockets. Additional armament could be mounted on four external hardpoints like the N-126 and N-144, however, two of these would be taken up by external fuel tanks. These tanks would be 600 gal (2,730 l). The majority of the fuel would be in a large tank that spanned the fuselage and into the wings and would carry 2,050 gal (9,320 l) of fuel. Northrop expected a first flight of the aircraft by the summer of 1957.

The Program Concludes

Detailed drawing of the N-149 with cutaway

Although Northrop is the center of this article, Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, Martin, McDonnell, North American, Chance-Vought, Grumman and Convair all submitted designs. When the assessment of all the designs was completed, it was concluded that none of the proposals exactly met up the set requirements. The N-144, however, came the closest to meeting the specification. After assessment, the N-144 had a predicted speed of Mach 1.76, a combat ceiling of 58,500 ft (17,800 m) and a combat range of 1,015 nm (1,880 km).

McDonnell’s design came close, as it could go faster and reach the same altitude, but its range was much less compared to the N-144. Materials Command was not too keen of the N-144 and it is obvious why. The cost, production and maintenance of it would be tremendous. Given its four engines, the aircraft would require much more maintenance compared to its two-engine competitors. Producing such a large aircraft would be extremely costly given its size and engine count. The best option for performance would also be the worst option considering its cost.

Its siblings didn’t meet the specifications as well. No reason was put out as to why the N-126 failed the competition, but given the state of the program, it can easily be assumed it didn’t meet either the range, speed, or altitude requirements. The N-149 did have a specified reason for its rejection, though. After taking off at full power and reaching its maximum height, it would only offer 20 minutes of flight, with 5 minutes at full power for combat. Having your aircraft destroy as many bombers before reaching their target is necessary and only 5 minutes wouldn’t be sufficient to fulfill its duty. Ultimately, WS-202A wouldn’t produce any aircraft. The requirements had gone too high, and the companies wouldn’t be able to produce a cost effective aircraft in time that would meet the expected specifications. The program would go on to become the new LRI-X program in October of 1954, and Northrop would be one of three companies tasked with creating a new interceptor, which their Delta-Wing trio would surely influence in a number of ways.

Variants

  • Northrop N-126 (February 1953) – The 1953 N-126 Delta Scorpion was an improvement upon the F-89D Scorpion by having a delta wing and YJ67 engines.
  • Northrop N-126 (1954) – The 1954 version of the N-126 no longer resembled the F-89 but was now longer and more streamlined.
  • Northrop N-144 – The N-144 would be the second design submitted to the LRI competition. It was much larger than the other two submissions and would utilize four engines.
  • Northrop N-149 – The N-149 was the smallest of the three designs and was meant to be the best performing for its size. It looked visually similar to the N-126 but would carry slightly less ordnance and utilize Gen Elec XJ79-GE-1 jet engines over the Wright J67-W-1s.

Operators

  • United States of America – All three designs would have been operated by the United States Air Force had they been constructed.

Northrop N-126 Delta Scorpion (1954) Specifications

Wingspan 62 ft 3 in / 19 m
Length 85 ft / 25.9 m
Wing Area 1,050 ft² / 97.7 m²
Engine 2x 13,200 Ibs ( 58.7 kN ) Wright J67-W-1 Jet engines
Weights 75,830 lbs / 34,400 kg (Gross)
Fuel Storage 4,844 gal / 22,025 l
Maximum Speed 1,183 mph / 1,903 km/h at 35,000 ft / 10,700 m
Cruising Speed 793 mph / 1,276 kmh
Range 800 nm / 1,500 km
Climb Rate 2.45 minutes to 40,000 ft / 12,000 m
Maximum Service Ceiling 59,600 ft / 18,000 m (Point Interception Role)

56,200 ft / 17,000 m (Area Interception Role)

Crew 1 Pilot

1 Radar Operator

Main Proposed Armament
  • 8x GAR-1 Falcon AAM
  • 48 2.75in (7 cm) FFAR
Alternative Armament Loadouts
  • 4x Ding Dong Unguided Nuclear Rockets
  • 6x Sidewinder AAMs
  • 2x Sparrow AAMs
  • 1x 1,640 lbs (744 kg) bomb

Northrop N-144 Specifications

Wingspan 78 ft 10 in / 24 m
Length 103 ft 6 in / 31.5 m
Wing Area 1,700 ft² / 158.1 m²
Engine 4x 13,200 Ibs ( 58.7kN ) Wright J67-W-1 Jet engines
Weights 113,700 lbs / 51,500 kg (Gross)

91,600 Ibs / 41,550 kg (Combat)

Fuel Storage 6,910 gal / 31,420 l

44,940 Ib / 20,390 kg

Maximum Speed (Mach 2.04) 1560 mph / 2520 km/h at 34,000 ft / 10,000 m
Cruising Speed (Mach 1.06) 810 mph / 1300 km/h
Range 1,015 nm / 1,880 km
Climb Rate 1.9 minutes to 40,000 ft / 12,000 m
Maximum Service Ceiling 63,000 ft / 19,202 m (Point Interception Role)

60,000 ft / 18,288 m (Area Interception Role)

Crew 1 Pilot

1 Radar Operator

Main Proposed Armament
  • 8x GAR-1 Falcon AAM
  • 48 2.75in (7 cm) FFAR
Alternative Armament Loadouts Internal Storage

  • 12x Falcon AAM
  • 6x AIR-2 Genie (Ding Dong) Missiles
  • 452 2.75 in FFAR
  • 782 2in (5.1cm) Rockets

External Hardpoints

  • Unknown type of bombs mounted on 4 hardpoints.

Northrop N-149 Specifications

Wingspan 50 ft 10 in / 15.5 m
Length 70ft 6 in /21.5 m
Wing Area 700 ft² / 65.1 m²
Engine 2x 9,300 Ibs ( 41.3 kN ) Gen Elec XJ79-GE-1 Jet engines
Weight 43,400 Ibs / 19,700 kg
Fuel Storage 2,050 gal / 9,320 lit

13,310 Ibs / 19,690kg

Maximum Speed (Mach 1.51) 1160 mph / 1860 km/h at 35,000 ft / 10,700 m
Cruising Speed (Mach 1) 770 mph / 1230 km/h
Range 770 nm / 1,430 km
Climb Rate 3.1 minutes to 40,000 ft / 12,000 m
Maximum Service Ceiling 55,700 ft / 17,000 m (Point Interception Role)

52,800 ft / 16,000 m (Area Interception Role)

Crew 1 Pilot

1 Radar Operator

Main Proposed Armament
  • 8x GAR-1 Falcon AAM
  • 48 2.75in (7 cm) FFAR
Alternative Armament Loadouts Internal Storage

  • 1x Sparrow II AAM
  • 4x Sidewinder AAMs
  • 105x 2.75in (7 cm) rockets (original 48 on top of this)
  • 270x 2in (5.1 cm) rockets

External Hardpoints

  • 4x Hardpoints for additional weapons (2 are used for fuel tanks)

Gallery

Northrop N-126 – Artist Impression of the Delta Scorpion in USAF Prototype Stage
Northrop N-144 – Artist Impression of the N-144 the in Late Prototype Stage
Northrop N-149 – Artist Impression of the N-149 in service with the 171 Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Michigan, circa 1960s

 

3-Way drawing of the N-126 Delta Scorpion [US Secret Fighter Projects]
3-Way drawing of the N-149 [US Secret Fighter Projects]
Underside quarter view of the N-126 model [US Secret Fighter Projects]

3 view drawing of the N-126 Delta Scorpion
A photo of the N-126 Delta Scorpion in wind tunnel testing

3-Way drawing of the N-149 [US Secret Fighter Projects]
Colored photo of the N-149 model. Note the tail has been slightly damaged. [US Secret Fighter Projects]
Rear view of the N-149 model. Damage to the tail is evident here. [American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors, 1945-1978]
Credits

North American F-86A Sabre

USA flag old United States of America (1947)
Jet Fighter – 554 Built

F-86A-1-NA Sabre 47-630 in flight (North American Aviation)

The iconic F-86A got its first official production underway with the A series in 1947, with the initial examples fulfilling many testing duties, followed by a larger second production batch for active service. The development of these first Sabres would address many teething problems with the aircraft’s engines, speed brakes, and weaponry.  The A models, alongside many other first generation American jet aircraft would go on to see a few short years of service in the Korean theatre as well as defense of the United States before being eclipsed by the relatively rapid development of more advanced jet designs.

History

The P-86A was the first production version of the Sabre. North American had received an order for 33 production P-86As on November 20, 1946, even before the first XF-86 prototype had flown. The P-86A was outwardly quite similar to the XP-86, with external changes being very slight. About the only noticeable external difference was that the pitot tube was moved from the upper vertical fin to a position inside the air intact duct.

Major Richard L. Johnson, USAF with F-86A-1-NA Sabre 47-611 and others at Muroc AFB, 15 September 1948. (F-86 Sabre, by Maurice Allward)

The first production block consisted of 33 P-86A-1-NAs, ordered on October 16, 1947. These were known as NA-151 on North American company records. Serials were 47-605 through 47-637. Since there were officially no YP-86 service test aircraft, this initial production block effectively served as such.

The first production P-86A-1-NA (serial number 47-605) flew for the first time on May 20, 1948. The first and second production machines were accepted by the USAF on May 28, 1948, although they both remained at Inglewood on bailment to North American for production development work. Aircraft no. 47-605 was not actually sent to an Air Force base until April 29, 1950. It remained at WPAFB until May of 1952, when it was retired to storage at the Griffiss Air Depot.

In June of 1948, the P-86 was redesignated F-86 when the P-for-pursuit category was replaced by F-for-fighter

By March of 1949 the last F-86A-1-NA (47-637) had been delivered. Most of the 33 F-86A-1-NAs built were used for various tests and evaluations, and none actually entered squadron service.

The first production block to enter squadron service was actually the second production batch, 188 of which were ordered on February 23, 1949. They were assigned the designation of F-86A-5-NA by the USAF, but continued to be carried as NA-151 on company records. Serials were 48-129 to 48-316. These were powered by the J47-GE-7 jet engine. Deliveries began in March of 1949 and were completed in September of 1949.

A contract for 333 additional F-86As was received on May 29, 1948, and the final contract was approved on February 23, 1949. These aircraft were assigned a new designation of NA-161 on North American company records, but continued to be designated F-86A-5-NA in USAF records. Their serials were 49-1007 to 49-1229. These were powered by the General Electric J47-GE-13 engine which offered 5200 pounds of static thrust. The cockpit wiring was simplified. New 120-gallon drop tanks, developed specifically for the F-86, were introduced during this production run. Deliveries commenced in October of 1949 and were completed by December of 1950. The 282nd F-86A aircraft had a redesigned wing trailing edge with shorter chord aileron and greater elevator boost. Deliveries commenced October 1949 and ended in December 1950.

First Deployment

The first USAF combat organization to receive the F-86A was the First Fighter Group based at March AFB in California, with the famous “Hat in the Ring” 94th Squadron being the first to take delivery when they traded in their F-80s for the F-86A-5-NA during February of 1949. The 27th and 71st Squadrons were equipped with F-86A-5-NAs next, and by the end of May of 1949 the group had 83 F-86As on strength. This group was charged with the aerial defense of the Los Angeles area, which, coincidentally, is where the North American Aviation factory was located. Next to get the F-86 the the 4th Fighter Group based at Langley AFB, charged with the defense of Washington, D.C, and then the 81st Fighter Group, based at Kirtland AFT and charged with the defense of the nuclear bomb facilities at Alamogordo, New Mexico. Next came the 33rd Fighter Group based at Otis AFB in Massachusetts, charged with defending the northeastern approaches into the USA. In January of 1950, all air defense units were redesignated as Fighter Interceptor Groups (FIGs) or Fighter Interceptor Wings (FIWs) as a part of the Air Defense Command.

Origin of the “Sabre” Name

In February of 1949, there was a contest held by the First Fighter Group to choose a name for their new fighter. The name *Sabre* was selected, and was made official on March 4, 1949.

Reserves

The first Sabres that went to Reserve units were assigned to the 116th Fighter Interceptor Squadron of the Air National Guard, which received its first F-86As on December 22, 1950.

The following Wings were issued with the F-86A:

  • 1st Fighter Interceptor Wing (27th, 75st and 94th Squadrons)
  • 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing (334th, 335th, 336th Squadrons)
  • 33rd Fighter Interceptor Wing (58th, 59th and 60th Squadrons)
  • 56th Fighter Interceptor Wing (61st, 62nd, 63rd Squadrons)
  • 81st Fighter Interceptor Wing (78th, 89st, 92nd Squadron)

The F-86A was replaced in active USAF service by the F-86E beginning in the autumn of 1951. As F-86As left active USAF service, they were refurbished, reconditioned and transferred to Air National Guard units in the United States. The first ANG units to get the F-86A were the 198th Squadron in Puerto Rico, the 115th and 195th Squadrons at Van Nuys, California, the 196th at Ontario, and the 197th at Phoenix, Arizona.

Record Breaker

In the summer of 1948, the world’s air speed record was 650.796 mph, set by the Navy’s Douglas D-558-1 Skystreak research aircraft on August 25, 1947. Like the record-setting Lockheed P-80R before it, the Skystreak was a “one-off” souped-up aircraft specialized for high speed flight. The USAF thought that now would be a good time to show off its new fighter by using a stock, fully-equipped production model of the F-86A to break the world’s air speed record.

Major Richard L. Johnson on the day of his record-breaking flight, September 15th, 1948 (

To get the maximum impact, the Air Force decided to make the attempt on the speed record in the full glare of publicity, before a crowd of 80,000 spectators at the 1948 National Air Races in Cleveland, Ohio. The fourth production F-86A-1-NA (serial number 47-608, the cold weather test aircraft) was selected to make the record attempt, and Major Robert L. Johnson was to be the pilot. According to Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) rules, a 3km (1.86 mile) course had to be covered twice in each direction (to compensate for wind) in one continuous flight. At that time, the record runs had to be made at extremely low altitudes (below 165 feet) to enable precise timing with cameras to be made.

On September 5, 1948, Major Johnson was ready to go and flew his F-86A-1-NA serial number 47-708 on six low-level passes over the course in front of the crowd at Cleveland. Unfortunately, timing difficulties prevented three of these runs from being clocked accurately. In addition, interference caused by other aircraft wandering into the F-86A’s flight pattern at the wrong time prevented some of the other runs from being made at maximum speed. Even though the average of the three runs that were timed was 669.480 mph, the record was not recognized as being official by the FAI.

Further attempts to set an official record at Cleveland were frustrated by bad weather and by excessively turbulent air. Major Johnson then decided to move his record-setting effort out to Muroc Dry Lake (later renamed Edwards AFB), where the weather was more predictable and the air less turbulent. On September 15, 1948, Major Johnson finally succeeded in setting an official record of 670.981 mph by flying a different F-86A-1-NA (serial number 47-611, the armaments test aircraft) four times over a 1.86-mile course at altitudes between 75 and 125 feet.

Design

F-86A-1 47-611 Conducting a Static 5-inch HVAR Rocket Firing Test (U.S. Air Force Photo)

The P-86A incorporated as standard some of the changes first tested on the third XP-86 prototype. The front-opening speed brakes on the sides of the rear fuselage were replaced by rear-opening brakes, and the underside speed brake was deleted. However, the most important difference between the P-68A and the three XP-86 prototypes was the introduction of the 4850 lb.s.t. General Electric J47-GE-1 (TG-190) in place of the 4000 lb.s.t. J35. The two engines had a similar size, the J47 differing from the J35 primarily in having a twelfth compressor stage.

The F-86A-1-NA fighters could be recognized by their curved windshields and the flush-fitting electrically-operated gun muzzle doors that maintained the smooth surface of the nose. These muzzle doors opened automatically when the trigger was pressed to fire the guns, and closed automatically after each burst.

The cockpit of the F-86A remained almost the same as that of the XP-86, although certain military equipment was provided, such as an AN/ARC-3 VHF radio, an AN/ARN-6 radio compass, and an AN/APX-6 IFF radar identification set. The IFF set was equipped with a destructor which was automatically activated by impact during a crash or which could be manually activated by the pilot in an emergency. This was intended to prevent the codes stored in the device from being compromised by capture by the enemy. The F-86A was provided with a type T-4E-1 ejection seat, with a manually-jettisoned canopy.

The F-86A-1-NA’s empty weight was up to 10,077 pounds as compared to the prototype’s 9730 pounds, but the higher thrust of the J-47 engine increased the speed to 673 mph at sea level, which made the F-86A-1-NA almost 75 mph faster than the XP-86. Service ceiling rose from 41,200 feet to 46,000 feet. The initial climb rate was almost twice that of the XP-86.

In the autumn of 1948, problems with the J-47-GE-1 engine of the early F-86As forced a momentary halt to F-86 production. It was followed by a few J47-GE-3s, and in December the J47-GE-7 became available, which offered 5340 lb.s.t. and full production resumed.

A close up of the early A models’ retractable gunport covers. (Julien of Britmodeller)

The F-86A-5-NA had a V-shaped armored windscreen which replaced the curved windscreen of the F-86A-1-NA. The A-5 would dispense with the gun doors at some point in its production in the interest of maintenance simplicity, although many A-5 examples can be seen with gun doors, many of them with the doors permanently open. A jettisonable cockpit canopy was introduced. The A-5 introduced underwing pylons capable of carrying a variety of bombs (500 and 1000-pounders) or underwing fuel tanks of up to 206 gallons in capacity. A heating system was provided for the gun compartments, and stainless steel oil tanks and lines were provided for better fire resistance.

In May of 1949, beginning with the 100th F-86A aircraft, an improved canopy defrosting system was installed and a special coating was applied to the nose intake duct to prevent rain erosion. Earlier airframes were retrofitted to include these changes. The 116th F-86A was provided with a new wing slat mechanism which eliminated the lock and provided a fully automatic operation.

Gun Sight & Radar

The P-86A was equipped with the armament first tested on the third XP-86 six 0.50-inch machine guns in the nose, three on each side of the pilot’s cockpit. The guns had a rate of fire of 1100 rounds per minute. Each gun was fed by an ammunition canister in the lower fuselage holding up to 300 rounds of ammunition. The ammunition bay door could be opened up to double as the first step for pilot entry into the cockpit. The P-86A had two underwing hardpoints for weapons carriage. They could carry either a pair of 206.5 US-gallon drop tanks or a pair of 1000-lb bombs. Four zero-length stub rocket launchers could be installed underneath each wing to fire the 5-inch HVAR rocket, which could be carried in pairs on each launcher.

An innovation introduced with the NA-161 production batch was a new type of gun aiming system. All earlier F-86As had been equipped at the factory with Sperry Mark 18 optical lead computing gunsight, which was quite similar to the type of gunsight used on American fighter aircraft in the latter parts of World War 2. When the pilot identified his target, he set the span scale selector lever to correspond to the wingspan of the enemy aircraft he was chasing. He then aimed his fighter so that the target appeared within a circle of six diamond images on the reflector. Next, he rotated the range control unit until the diameter of the circle was the same as the size of the target. When the target was properly framed, the sight automatically computed the required lead and the guns could be fired.

Beginning with the first NA-161 aircraft (49-1007), the A-1B GBR sight and AN/APG-5C ranging radar were provided as factory-installed equipment. This new equipment was designed to automatically measure the range and automatically calculate the appropriate lead before the guns were fired, relieving the pilot of the cumbersome task of having to manually adjust an optical sight in order to determine the range to the target. When activated, the system automatically locked onto and tracked the target. The sight image determined by the A-1B was projected onto the armored glass of the windscreen, and the illumination of a radar target indicator light on the sight indicated time to track target continuously for one second before firing. This system could be used for rocket or bomb aiming as well as for guns.

In the last 24 F-86A-5-NAs that were built, the A-1B GPR sight and AN/APG-5C ranging radar were replaced by the A-1CM sight that was coupled with an AN/APG-30 radar scanner installed in the upper lip of the nose intake underneath a dark-colored dielectric covering. The APG-30 radar was a better unit than the AN/APG-5C, with a sweep range from 150 to 3000 yards. The A-1CM sight and the APG-30 ranging radar were both retrofitted to earlier A-5s during in-field modifications. These planes were redesignated F-86A-7-NA. However, some F-86A-5-NAs had the new A-1CM GBR sight combined with the older AN/APG-5C radar. These were redesignated F-86A-6-NA.

Engines

Some consideration given to replacing the J47 engine with the improved J35-A-17 that was used in the F-84E. This engine was tested in the first XP-86. Flight tests between November 28, 1949 and March 1951 indicated that the performance remained much the same as that of the F-86A-1-NA but with a slightly better range. However, the improvement was not considered significant enough to warrant changing production models.

Some F-86As were re-engined with the J47-GE-13 engine, rated at 5450 lb.s.t., but their designation did not change.

All F-86As were initially delivered with the pitot head located inside the air intake duct. It was found in practice that false airspeed readings could be obtained due to the increased airflow within the intake duct, so North American decided to move the pitot head to the tip of a short boom that extended from the leading edge of the starboard wingtip. All F-86As were later retrofitted with the wingtip boom when went through IRAN (Inspect and Repair as Necessary). However, the pitot tube in the intake was never designed to provide airspeed input to the pilot, and the pitot tube in the intake was still there and was used to provide input for the engine.

Fuel

Internal fuel capacity of the F-86A was 435 gallons, carried in four self-sealing tanks. Two of the tanks were in the lower part of the fuselage, one of them being wrapped around the intake duct just ahead of the engine and the other being wrapped around the engine itself. The other two fuel tanks were in the wing roots. Usually the F-86A carried two 120-gallon drop tanks, although 206.5 gallon tanks could be fitted for ferry purposes.

Weapons

Ground attack weapons could be installed in place of the jettisonable underwing fuel tanks. Choices include a pair of 100, 500 or 1000-pound bombs, 750-pound napalm tanks, or 500 pound fragmentation clusters. Alternatively, eight removable zero-rail rocket launchers could be installed. These mounted sixteen 5-inch rockets. When external armament was fitted in place of the drop tanks, combat radius was reduced from 330 to 50 miles, which was not a very useful distance.

F-86A in Korea

Even though the initial skirmishes with MiGs in Korea had demonstrated that their pilots lacked experience and an aggressive approach, the MiG threat was very real and threw the USAF into a near panic. The USAF had nothing in Korea that could provide an effective counter if the MiG-15s were to intervene in large numbers.

In order to counter the MiG threat, on November 8 the 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing, which consisted of the 334th 335th, and 336th Squadrons, based at Wilmington, Delaware and equipped with the F-86A Sabre was ordered to Korea. Most of their pilots were seasoned veterans of World War 2 and they had shot down over 1000 Germans during that conflict. Prior to flying to the West Coast, the 4th FIG exchanged their older ’48 model F-86As for some of the best “low-time” F-86As taken from other Sabre units. The 334th and 335th FIS flew to San Diego and their planes were loaded aboard a Navy escort carrier. The 336th FIS went to San Francisco and was loaded aboard a tanker. Their F-86A aircraft arrived in Japan in mid-December. The aircraft were then unloaded and flown to Kimpo airfield in Korea.

However, before any of these Sabres could reach the front, on November 26, 1950, Chinese armies intervened with devastating force in Korea, breaking through the UN lines and throwing them back in utter confusion. The MiGs did not provide any effective support for this invasion, being unable to establish any effective intervention below a narrow strip up near the Yalu. The MiG pilots were relatively inexperienced and were poor marksmen. They would seldom risk more than one pass at their targets before they would dart back across the Yalu. Had the MiGs been able to establish and hold air superiority over the battle area, the UN forces may well have been thrown entirely out of Korea.

The first advanced detachment of 336th FIS F-86As arrived at Kimpo airfield south of Seoul on December 15. The first Sabre mission took place on December 17. It was an armed reconnaissance of the region just south of the Yalu. Lt. Col. Bruce H. Hinton, commander of the 336th Squadron, succeeding in shooting down one MiG-15 out of a flight of four, to score first blood for the Sabre. The rest of the MiGs fled back across the Yalu. On December 19, Col. Hinton led another four-plane flight up to the Yalu, where his flight met six MiGs who flew through his formation without firing a shot before dashing back across the Yalu. On December 22, the MiGs managed to shoot down a single Sabre out of a flight of eight without loss to themselves, but later that day the Sabres got their revenge by destroying six MiGs out a flight of 15. This loss spooked the MiG pilots, and they avoided combat for the rest of the month.

During December, the 4th Wing had flown 234 sorties, clashed with the enemy 76 times, scored eight victories, and lost one aircraft.

By the end of 1950, Chinese armies had driven UN forces out of North Korea and had begun to invade the South. The Sabres were forced to leave Kimpo and return to Japan which put them out of range of the action up at the Yalu.

Even though the Yalu was now out of range, on January 14, an F-86A detachment appeared at Taegu to participate as fighter bombers to try to halt the Chinese advance. The F-86A was not very successful in the fighter-bomber role, being judged much less effective than slower types such as the F-80 and the F-84. When carrying underwing ordinance, the F-86A’s range and endurance were much too low, and it could not carry a sufficiently large offensive load to make it a really effective fighter bomber. In these attacks, the underwing armament was usually limited to only a pair of 5-inch rockets.

Eventually, the Chinese advance ground to a halt due to extended supply lines and the relentless UN air attacks. The Chinese advance was halted by the end of January, and the UN forces began pushing them back. Kimpo airfield was recovered on February 10. The halting of the Chinese advance can be blamed largely on the inability of the MiGs to provide any effective support for the Chinese attack. Not only had no Chinese bombers appeared to attack UN troops, but no MiGs had flown south of the Yalu region to provide any air support.

The Chinese apparently did have plans for a major spring offensive to complete the task of driving the UN out of Korea. This plan was to be based on the construction of a series of North Korean air bases and for Chinese MiGs to use these bases as forward landing strips to provide air superiority over the North, preventing UN aircraft from interfering with the advance.

In early March, the MiGs began to become more active in support of this offensive, On March 1, MiGs jumped a formation of nine B-29s and severely damaged three of them. Fortunately, by this time the UN base at Suwon was now ready, and the Sabres were now able to return to Korea and reenter the fray over the Yalu. The Sabres of the 334th Squadron began their first Yalu patrols on March 6th, and the rest of the squadron moved in four days later. At the same time, the 336th Squadron moved to Taegu from Japan, so that they could stage Sabres through Suwon. The 4th Wing’s other squadron, the 335th, stayed in Japan until May 1.

MiG Alley

The strip of airspace in western Korea just south of the Yalu soon became known as “MiG Alley” to the Sabre pilots. The Sabres would arrive for their 25-minute patrols in five minute intervals. The MiGs would usually cruise back and forth at high altitude on the other side of the Yalu, looking for an opportune time to intervene. Very often they would remain on the north side of the river, tantalizingly out of reach. When the MiGs did choose to enter battle, the Sabres would usually have only a fleeting chance to fire at the enemy before the MiGs broke off and escaped back across the Yalu. The MiGs had the advantage of being able to choose the time and place of the battle. The MiG-15 had a better high-altitude performance than the F-86A. The MiG had a higher combat ceiling, a higher climb rate, and was faster at higher altitudes than the F-86A. Its superior high-altitude performance enabled the MiG to break off combat at will. Despite these handicaps, the F-86A pilots were far more experienced than their Chinese opponents and they were better marksmen. The Sabre was a more stable gun platform and had fewer high-speed instabilities than did the MiG-15. In addition, the F-86A was faster than the MiG-15 at lower altitudes, and an effective strategy was for the Sabre to force the battle down to lower altitudes where it had the advantage.

In April of 1951, the MiGs got a little bolder, and they would often make attempts to intercept B-29 formations that were attacking targets in the Sinuiju area up near the Yalu. The biggest air battle of that spring took place on April 12, when a formation of 39 B-29s escorted by F-84Es and F-86As were attacked by over 70 MiGs. Three B-29s were lost, whereas 14 MiGs were claimed destroyed, four by the escorting Sabres and ten by B-29 gunners.

On May 20, 1951, F-86A pilot Captain James Jabara became the world’s first jet ace when he shot down a pair of MiGs to bring his total to six.

No F-86As were lost in action during the first five months of 1951, and they flew 3550 sorties and scored 22 victories. Most of the attrition was caused by accidents rather than by losses in actual combat.

In June of 1951, the MiGs began to show more aggressive behavior, and their pilots began to get somewhat better. In air battles on June 17th, 18th, and 19th, six MiGs were destroyed but two Sabres were lost. Another Sabre was lost on June 11 when the 4th Wing covering an F-80 attack on the Sinuiju airfield shot down two more MiGs.

As the first year of the Korean War came to an end, it was apparent that the Sabre had been instrumental in frustrating the MiG-15’s bid for air superiority. Without control of the air, the Red Chinese were unable to establish their series of air bases and they were not able to carry out effective air support of their spring offensive, and the Korean War settled down to a stalemate on the ground.

The more-advanced F-86E began to enter action in Korea with the 4th Wing in July of 1951, replacing that unit’s F-86As on a one-by-one basis. The conversion to the F-86E was rather slow, and the last F-86A was not replaced until July of 1952.

Operators

  • U.S. Air Force – The U.S. utilized the F-86A extensively for the air defense of the Continental United States, while also seeing action in Korea in MiG Alley.

North American F-86A-5-NA Specifications

Wingspan 37 ft 1.5 in / 11.32 m
Length 37 ft 6.5 in / 11.44 m
Height 14 ft 9 in / 4.5 m
Wing Area 287.9 ft² / 26.8 m²
Engine 1x General Electric J47-GE-13 Turbojet Engine

5200 lbst

Weights
Empty 10,093 lb / 4,578 kg
Maximum Take Off 14,108 lb / 6,399 kg
Combat 13,791 lb / 6,255 kg
Climb Rate
Rate of Climb at Sea Level 7,470 ft / 2,277 m per minute
Time to 40,000 ft / 12,192 m 10.4 minutes
Maximum Speed
Sea Level 679 mph / 1,092 kmh
35,000 ft / 10,668 m 601 mph / 967 kmh
Takeoff Run 2,430 ft / 741 m
Range (with Drop Tanks) 660 mi / 1,062 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 48,000 ft / 14,630 m
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • 6x Browning M3 machine guns, 300 rounds per gun
  • A-1B GBR Gun Sight
  • AN/APG-5C Ranging Radar
  • 8x 5-inch HVAR Rockets
  • 2x 1000 lb bombs
  • 2x Drop Tanks – 206.5 U.S. Gal / 781.7 Liters

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

F-86A-1 Sabre 47-611 – September 1948
F-86A-1 Sabre 47-630 – 1948
F-86A-5 48-0158 – 1949
F-86A-5 48-1257 – Korea 1951 – Flown by Capt. James Jabara
F-86A-5 Sabre 49-1080 February 1952 – Note the 5 inch HVAR Rocket Mounted inboard of the fuel tank

Sources:

  1. F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
  2. The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.
  3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
  4. The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966.
  5. Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.
  6. North American F-86 Sabre, Larry Davis, Wings of Fame, Volume 10, 1998

 

Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa in Communist Chinese Service

PRC flag People’s Republic of China (1945-1952)
Fighter – 8+ Operated

An illustration depicting a Hayabusa in Communist service flying. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2)

Widely known as one of Japan’s most iconic aircraft of the Pacific War, the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa’s service life was not limited to the Second World War. Shortly after the Japanese capitulation, Nationalist and Communist Chinese forces were able to capture stockpiles of firearms, tanks and planes left over by the fleeing Japanese forces. Among these were various models of the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa. These were pressed into service with the Communist Chinese as an advanced combat trainer and fighter. One of the rather obscure chapters of the Hayabusa’s service life was that it was the first plane used by the Communist Chinese in aerial combat.

History

Developed in the late 1930s, the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (Type 1 Fighter) enjoyed a relatively successful service record in the Second Sino-Japanese War once introduced in 1941. The Japanese 59th and 64th Sentai (Squadrons) were the first two squadrons to receive the new Ki-43-I fighter. With barely any resistance by the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF), the Ki-43-I helped reinforce Japanese aerial superiority over China, French Indochina, Malaya, and parts of India until the arrival of lend-lease Allied warplanes for China. Throughout the service of the Hayabusa, three major variants were issued to units: the Ki-43-I, Ki-43-II, and Ki-43-III. The Japanese also provided some of these variants to the Manchukuo Imperial Air Force in the Northeast region of China. With the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War, stockpiles of Japanese equipment was up for grabs between the Soviets, Nationalist Chinese, and the Communist Chinese. The Nationalist Chinese forces reoccupied Shanghai near the end of 1945 and captured warplanes formerly belonging to the Japanese. Among these were various models of the Hayabusa which were used to equip the 18th and 19th Squadrons of the ROCAF’s 6th Fighter Group. These Hayabusas were stationed at Shandong in preparation for the Chinese Civil War. Due to a lack of spare parts and adequate mechanics, the two squadrons were disbanded the following May.

The Communist Chinese forces were by no means idle during the immediate few postwar months. Countless guns were captured, with a considerable amount of tanks and planes as well. In October of 1945, the Communist Chinese forces captured their first five Hayabusas during the liberation of Shenyang during the Liaoshen Campaign from the Nationalists. These five captured Nationalist Hayabusas were Ki-43-II models that formerly belonged to the Japanese 4th Training Regiment. The exact model of the planes is unknown. (It is unknown if they are kō, otsu, hei, etc. variants). These five planes would be sent to the recently established Northeast Old Aviation School (东北老航校) after some refurbishing and repairs. In December of the same year, two of these planes were repaired and were planned to be ferried to the Northeast Old Aviation School. Two Japanese ferry pilots now loyal to the Communist Chinese took off from Fengjibao (奉集堡) to fly to Tonghua (通化), one of their destinations. The two Hayabusas and their pilots never made it to Tonghua however, and it is widely speculated that these Japanese pilots were unfamiliar with the geography and ended up getting lost. This is indeed a possibility but there are many other theories. It’s conceivable that the planes suffered from mechanical failure and crashed. Another possibility may be that the pilots were intercepted by ROCAF planes, but there is no proof of this.

Artwork Depicting a Ki-43 flying over Japanese trainers in the Northeast Aviation School. (Illustration by Chen Yingming / 陈应明)

The rest of the Hayabusas were eventually delivered to the Northeast Old Aviation School, where they were used as advanced trainers for fighter pilots. In April of 1948, men belonging to the Northeast Old Aviation school were able to capture an unspecified amount of Hayabusa fighters in the Chaoyang (朝阳镇) Town airport located in Jilin. This was followed by another unspecified batch of Hayabusas captured in Sunjia (孙家) Airport located near Harbin in the Heilongjiang province sometime in June of the same year. Four Hayabusas were recorded to have been repaired by the school from 1947 to 1948. Under the guidance of former Japanese and Manchukuo pilots, many of the Communist Chinese air cadets were soon able to graduate from flying in the two-seater Tachikawa Ki-55 trainer to flying solo in the Hayabusa.

In March of 1948, a number of experienced pilots and instructors were pulled from the school to form a “Combat Flying Wing” (战斗飞行大队). The 1st Squadron would use bombers and transport aircraft while 2nd Squadron would use fighters. Among these would be six Ki-43-II models. The intent of this formation was to combat Nationalist planes, but this wing never saw any combat action.

Considerations were made to use the Hayabusa in the Establishment of the People’s Republic of China parade on October 1st of 1949, but this did not happen. Despite what one may think, the Japanese planes were not withheld from the parade due to political and racial issues, but rather fear of them experiencing mechanical problems during the parade.

Communist Chinese service members standing in front of a captured Hayabusa. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2)

As such, these worn out Hayabusas were grounded. By November of 1949, there were only five examples of the Hayabusa that were still in use. These final five fighters were used by the 7th Aviation School as trainers and teaching aids. By 1952, all of the Hayabusas were finally retired from service. There are no surviving examples of the Communist Chinese Hayabusa, but there is one known photo of the Communist Hayabusa in service.

First Air-to Air Combat of the Communist Chinese Air Force

In the afternoon of October 15th 1947, four Nationalist Chinese P-51D Mustangs belonging to the Shenyang Beiling airfield took off under the leadership of Xu Jizhen (徐吉骧), the co-captain of the squadron. They were tasked with the mission of patrolling the airspace of Harbin (哈尔滨), Jiamusi (佳木斯) and the Sino-Soviet border. Upon crossing the mountains near Mishan (密山), the Mustangs squadron noticed a Tachikawa Ki-55 trainer with Communist Chinese markings belonging to the Northeast Old Aviation School preparing to land at the nearby Tangyuan (汤原) airport. This Ki-55 was piloted by Lu Liping (吕黎平) and an unnamed Japanese instructor. Xu Jizhen immediately dove for the trainer and began firing. The area immediately behind the instructor’s compartment was hit, which resulted in a fire. Watching the attack from the ground, Fang Hua (方华), a veteran Communist soldier, scrambled for a nearby parked Nakajima Ki-43-II Hayabusa and took off. Unfortunately for him, the Hayabusa was not loaded with ammunition so he was unable to engage the Mustangs. However, he was able to lead the Mustangs away from the airfield and evaded their shots until they ran out of ammo. This unfortunate skirmish was the first air-to-air combat experience the Communist Chinese had.

Debunking the Numbers Operated

According to many Western sources, the Communist Chinese Forces only operated five Hayabusas. This is however incorrect. The author believes the reason that these sources mention only five models captured was due to translation errors or simply by overlooking facts. The most likely cause of the misconception is likely due to two facts:

  1. By the end of the Liaoshen Campaign, the Communist Chinese forces had captured five models.
  2. By the time the PLAAF was officially established, there were five models still in service.

What these Western sources may have overlooked however, was the fact that two of the first five models captured crashed during a ferry flight in December of 1945. This leaves only three models operational.

However, a commonly overlooked fact is that the Northeast Old Aviation School was able to capture an unspecified amount of Hayabusas in the Chaoyang (朝阳镇) Town airport located in Jilin sometime in April of 1946. Another unspecified batch of Hayabusas were also captured in Sunjia (孙家) Airport located near Harbin in the Heilongjiang province in June. Due to the unspecified nature of the amount of Hayabusas captured in these two places, it only adds to the difficulty of determining how much Hayabusas were truly captured and operated. But on an inventory check done in April of 1948, a total of six Hayabusas were accounted for serving with the 2nd Squadron. According to this record, that should mean three or more Hayabusas were captured in those two airfields. That should make a total of eight or more Hayabusas when accounting for the two crashed ones. In conclusion, the author believes that a potential total of eight or more Hayabusas were captured, and operated by the Communist Chinese forces to some extent until the retirement of all models in 1952.

Gallery

Communist Chinese Ki-43-II in the colors of the Northeast Old Aviation School by Brendan Matsuyama

Sources

Gang, W., Ming, C. Y., & Wei, Z. (2012). 中国飞机全书 (Vol. 1). Beijing: 航空工业出版社., Gang, W., Ming, C. Y., & Wei, Z. (2009). 中国飞机全书 (Vol. 2). Beijing: 航空工业出版社., Allen, K. (n.d.). PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY AIR FORCE ORGANIZATION., 网易军事. (2016, May 24). 老航校70周年:“鬼子飞行员”在中国当教官., Zhang, X. (2003). Red Wings over the Yalu: China, the Soviet Union, and the Air War in Korea. College Station: Texas A & M University Press., Side Profile Views by Brendan Matsuyama

North American P-51 Mustang in Communist Chinese Service

PRC flag People’s Republic of China (1948-1953)
Fighter – 39 Operated

The North American P-51 Mustang is considered one of the world’s most iconic warplanes from the Second World War, seeing action in nearly all theaters, as well as the Korean War and many other conflicts thereafter. However, one of the lesser known stories of the Mustang is its service with the Communist Chinese forces who would go on to form the People’s Republic of China shortly after. A total of 39 Mustangs were obtained from the Chinese Nationalist forces either by capture or defection. These Mustangs were used in various roles with the Communists, and nine of them even had the honor of flying over Beijing on October 1st 1949 for a parade to commemorate the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. Although never seeing combat, the Mustangs still had served with the Communist Chinese forces as one of their most advanced fighters until the arrival of Soviet aid.

A photo displaying the rather impressive cache of captured Nationalist planes now in Communist service. In this photo, there are around nineteen P-51 Mustangs visible. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2)

History

The Republic of China (i.e, Chinese Nationalists under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek) was a notable operator of the North American P-51 Mustang during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). Since the United States entered the Second World War, plans were made to provide the Republic of China China with modern American warplanes to replace the worn and outdated planes that the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) were using. The Mustangs were initially flown by pilots of the Chinese-American Composite Wing (CACW) starting from November 1944. The models they operated were P-51B and P-51C, but later in February 1945, P-51D and P-51K variants were delivered and put to use against the Japanese along with the P-51B and P-51C. At the end of the Second World War, the ROCAF received 278 Mustangs from the USAAF, most of which were P-51D and P-51K models, but also with some F-6D and F-6K photo reconnaissance models. Soon after, the uneasy relationship between the Communist Party of China under the leadership of Mao Zedong and the Nationalist government under the leadership of Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) disintegrated. As such, the civil war between the two parties resumed after nearly nine years of truce. This time however, the Communist forces were more prepared to fight the Nationalist forces. As time went on, the Nationalist forces began losing their hold on mainland China and were forced to retreat to Formosa (Taiwan), but not before many of their soldiers, officers and generals defected, leaving a substantial amount of equipment behind.

The People’s Liberation Army obtained their first Mustang on September 23rd 1948 when Captain Yang Peiguang (杨培光) from the Nationalist 4th Fighter Wing based in Beiping (Beijing) defected with his P-51D to the Communist forces at Siping, Jilin Province. The bulk of the Mustangs which would be captured by the Communist forces were, however, from the Liaoshen Campaign which lasted from September 12th – November 2nd, 1948. With the Communist victory at the Battle of Jinzhou on October 15th, a considerable amount of Nationalist equipment was captured; among these were thirty one Mustangs in various states of repair at the Jinzhou Airfield. Though now with thirty four Mustangs in total, the People’s Liberation Army was not able to press any into service due to many factors; the most important two being the lack of able pilots and the varying states of disrepair that the Mustangs were in.

The city of Shenyang was finally captured by the People’s Liberation Army on October 30th 1948, and on the second day of the city’s capture on October 31st, the Northeast People’s Liberation Army Aviation School sent men to secure the Shenyang Beiling airport, factories, warehouses, personnel, and various other assets formerly belonging to the Nationalists. In November, the Shenyang Beiling airport was officially established as the People’s Liberation Army Air Force Repair Factory Number 5 (中国人民解放军空军第五修理厂). With the establishment of this repair factory, the first machines to be repaired were the Mustangs. The repairs took top priority and the first Mustang was ready for service on December 30th. Since then, thirty six Mustangs were repaired within a span of eighteen to twenty months lasting until 1950.

On December 10th 1948, the People’s Liberation Army was able to capture the Nationalist-held Beiping (Beijing) Nanyuan Airport as part of the Pingjin Campaign. Three Mustangs were found in relatively good condition, and a total of 128 Packard-built V-1650 Merlin engines were captured as well. This boosted the total amount of Mustangs in the People’s Liberation Army to thirty seven, and provided plenty of replacement engines for maintenance. After this, two more Mustangs would fall in the hands of the Communist forces.

On December 29th, Lieutenant Tan Hanzhou (谭汉洲) of the Nationalist 4th Fighter Group defected with his Mustang from Qingdao to Communist held Shenyang. The last Mustang to fall into the People’s Liberation Army’s hands occured on January 14th of 1949 when Lieutenant Yan Chengyin* (阎承荫) from the Nationalist 3rd Fighter Group’s 28th Squadron defected from his home base of Nanjing to Communist held Jinan.

Lieutenant Tan Hanzhou with his Mustang shortly after his defection. (blog.163.com)

 

Now with thirty nine Mustangs in total, the People’s Liberation Army began to put them to use. Starting from late January 1949, a large number of Mustangs were presented to the Northeast Old Aviation School’s (东北老航校) 2nd Squadron of the 1st Air Group with the purpose of training pilots. On August 15th 1949, the People’s Liberation Army formed their first flying squadron named at the Beiping Nanyuan airfield. The squadron consisted of two Fairchild PT-19 trainers, two de Havilland Mosquito fighter-bombers and six Mustangs. Shortly after the formation on September 5th, this squadron was assigned the task of defending Beiping’s airspace from Nationalist forces. At some point before October, eleven more Mustangs were assigned to this squadron. The squadron saw no combat.

* Mr. Yan later changed his name to Yan Lei (阎磊) after his defection.

Perhaps the most notable use of the Mustangs in Communist Chinese service was on October 1st 1949. By then, the bulk of the Nationalist forces were in discord and in the process of retreating to Formosa (Taiwan). With the Communist victory inevitable, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. A Soviet-style military parade was held in newly-renamed Beijing’s (Beiping) Tiananmen Square which included sixteen thousand and four hundred soldiers, one hundred and fifty two tanks, two hundred and twenty two cars and seventeen planes were displayed to the public. Of these seventeen planes, nine were Mustangs. The Mustangs flew in groups of threes in a V formation and led the aerial convoy. Once over Tiananmen square, these Mustangs increased their speed and flew past the square and out of sight, they made a turn and reentered Tiananmen square for the back just in time to link up with the two Fairchild PT-19A trainers flying last. Because they re-entered the square so quickly, the spectators were led to believe these were nine different Mustangs, with a total of twenty six planes appearing over Tiananmen square instead of the actual seventeen. This was mentioned in a government made propaganda newsreel. Of these nine Mustangs, at least one was a P-51K model.

After the parade, the Mustangs were once again deployed in a defensive state awaiting possible Nationalist intrusions in Beijing. By November 1949, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force was officially established and a total of twenty two airworthy Mustangs were in service, with nine more awaiting repair. This meant that thirty one Mustangs still survived, with eight written off. It is unknown what precisely happened to these Mustangs but the author speculates that they could have been cannibalized for parts, destroyed in training flights, disassembled to study the structure, or simply scrapped.

One of the only known photos of the two seat P-51D trainer. The canopy seemed to have been removed to make space. (js.voc.com.cn)

On July 26th 1950, the Beijing defense squadron was renamed the “Air Force 1st Independent Fighter Brigade” (空军独立第一歼击机大队). By then, the Soviet Union was supplying the Chinese with more modern equipment and by mid-August, the brigade’s Mustangs were replaced by Soviet Lavochkin La-9 fighters. Once replaced, all Mustangs scattered across the country were collected and given to Aviation School No.7 to train new pilots. With this, Aviation School No.7 modified thirteen Mustangs to be two-seat trainers. This was done perhaps to speed up the training process, and to prevent accidents by rookie pilots without guidance. There is currently one known photo of the two seat trainer.

By September 1953, most Mustangs were retired from training service due to cracks in the landing gear. However, eight of them remained in service with Aviation School No.7 to train Ilyushin IL-10 pilots how to taxi their planes. A few more examples were used as teaching tools to train pilots on identifying plane parts. It is unknown when precisely the Mustang was retired once and for all.

An illustration showing three P-51 Mustangs flying over Beijing on October 1st of 1949. (thepaper.cn)

Surviving PLAAF Mustangs

To this day, only two Mustangs formerly in PLAAF service survive in museums. The first one is a P-51K-10-NT “Red 3032” with the serial number 44-12458. This P-51K is on public display at the Chinese Aviation Museum (中国航空博物馆), sometimes also known as the Datangshan Aviation Museum located in Datangshan, Beijing. It remains in relatively pristine condition as it was in an indoors display and sheltered from the elements. Bomb hardpoints are visible under each of the wings which signifies that this Mustang perhaps once served as a fighter/bomber for the ROCAF.

P-51K-10-NT “Red 3032” on display. It is in rather good condition due to being stored indoors. (George Trussell)

The other surviving PLAAF Mustang is a P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” with the serial number 44-73920. This Mustang can be seen at the China People’s Revolution Military Museum (中国人民革命军事博物馆) in the Haidian District of Beijing. What is notable about this specific plane is that it was one of the nine Mustangs that flew over Beijing on October 1st of 1949 for the Founding of the People’s Republic of China parade. This Mustang was displayed outdoors exposed to nature for the majority of its life until the museum went under renovation when it was finally moved indoors. The Mustang has gone through minimal restoration, as it looks considerably cleaner than when it was displayed outdoors. This Mustang also had bomb hardpoints under its wings.

The P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” in its new indoor display after the museum renovation. It looks considerably cleaner than when it was displayed outdoors. (Wikimedia Commons)
The P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” in its old outdoors display, dust and slight rust can be seen on the machine. (Wikimedia Commons)

Variants Operated

A total of 39 North American P-51D Mustangs were operated by the Communist Chinese forces, and later the People’s Republic of China. Within these Mustangs, an unknown amount were P-51D and P-51K models.

  • P-51D – An unspecified amount of P-51D Mustangs of various block numbers were operated by the People’s Republic of China. A P-51D-25-NA is confirmed to have been in service as it flew over Beijing as part of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China parade and is now in the China People’s Revolution Military Museum (中国人民革命军事博物馆) in the Beijing.
  • P-51K – An unspecified amount of P-51K Mustangs of various block numbers were operated by the People’s Republic of China. A P-51K-10-NT is confirmed to have been in service as it is in the Chinese Aviation Museum (中国航空博物馆) in Beijing.
  • P-51 Trainer – A total of thirteen Mustangs were modified by Aviation School No.7 in 1951 to be two-seat trainers. The instructor sat in the rear while the student pilot was at the front. No surviving examples are preserved to this day.

Note

The author would like to extend his thanks to Mr. Hemmatyar for restoring some of the photos used in this article.

Gallery

P-51K-10-NT “Red 3032” displayed in the Chinese Aviation Museum in Datangshan, Beijing. Illustration by Brendan Matsuyama
P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” displayed in the China People’s Revolution Military Museum in the Haidian District of Beijing. Illustration by Brendan Matsuyama
A PLAAF P-51D/K with a blue rudder. The unit and serial number is unknown. Illustration by Brendan Matsuyama
A rare photograph of a mini P-51 Mustang model with PLAAF markings dated some time in the early 1950s. Two little boys accompany the cutout. This shows how impactful the Mustang was to the initial years of the People’s Republic of China. (eBay)
22 year old Lin Hu (林虎) with his P-51K before taking off to partake in the parade. (gogonews.cc)
A still frame showing three P-51 Mustangs flying over Beijing. (Establishment of the People’s Republic of China Parade)
A line of P-51 Mustangs awaiting inspection with their respective pilots standing at ease. (sohu.com)
A PLAAF Mustang taking off. Note the rocket rails. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2)
Mechanics and ground crew doing engine work on a Mustang. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2)
Four Mustangs line up on the Beijing Nanyuan Airfield awaiting to take off for the participation in the 1949 parade. Two Curtiss C-46 Commandos can also be seen in the background. (windsor8.com)

Sources

Gang, W., Ming, C. Y., & Wei, Z. (2009). 中国飞机全书 (Vol. 2). Beijing: 航空工业出版社., 八一战鹰大全(一)—— P-51“野马”战斗机. (n.d.). , Armstrong. (n.d.). 天马行空: 纪念 P-51 野马战斗机升空六十年., 肖邦振, & 李冰梅. (2010). 新中国成立前后 国民党空军飞行人员驾机起义探析. 军事史资料., Allen, K. (n.d.). PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY AIR FORCE ORGANIZATION., (2016, December 19).开国大典——1949国庆大阅兵, Side Profile Views by Brendan Matsuyama

1-f-15a-77-0124-ma_03

F-15 Eagle

usa flag USA (1976)
Tactical Fighter – 1,600 Built

The F-15 Eagle is beyond any doubt one of the most famous air superiority fighters of the second half of the Cold War, and a worthy successor of the also famous McDonnel Douglas F-4 Phantom. For instance, its predecessor was designed to be a fighter with attack capabilities for any weather condition, and the same concept was taken into account when developing the Eagle, only that it was intended mainly for air superiority. Interestingly, and despite the F-4 being a naval plane for most of the part, the F-15 would be a combat eagle on use by the USAF. There is also another thing both planes have in common, despite being the Phantom already in combat and the Eagle yet to be developed: the Vietnam War. As it happens, high number of casualties made the US Navy and the Air Force, along with the influence of Secretary of State Robert McNamara, to look for new models to replace the existing ones, including the Phantom. The introduction of the Mig 25 Foxbat provided the final argument in favour of the development of a new aircraft for air superiority. And with while the Navy would ultimately incorporate the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, the USAF decided to go for its own fighter, resulting in the F-15, being the counterpart of the Tomcat and taking the Mig-25 as inspiration in terms of performance, to say the least.

f-15a-display
F-15A Model on Display

The F-15 Eagle is single-seat – or double seat in tandem in certain versions – twin-engine all-weather tactical fighter/air superiority fighter with attack and bombing capabilities, with cantilever shoulder-mounted wings. As it was briefly mentioned, the Vietnam War gave way for its requirement given the high losses to soviet-made aircraft (often old models) back in 1964, with 1968 being the year of requirements issuing and 1969 the year when development of the Eagle began. The main requirement was for the new fighter to be of air superiority and having secondary attack capacities. McDonnell Douglas was the company that awarded the requirements, thus developing the Eagle from the abovementioned year and flying the first prototype in 1972. NASA, in addition, came to take active part in the development of the F-15, especially on its mission requirements, at the same time of the development by the industry contractors.

The Eagle became to be one of the most advanced fighters of the times, clearly fulfilling its mission as it is considered the best air superiority fighter. The secret of its effectiveness and resilience lies on its structure, which is made of metal and then titanium at most of its components, and the empennage made of composite materials – twin aluminium/composite material honeycomb – and the vertical stabilizers made of boron-composite skin. This allowed the tails and the rudders to be very thin yet resistant. The wing also plays its role in bestowing the flying and combat capabilities of the F-15, as this has a cropped delta shape with a leading-edge sweepback of 45 degrees. There are no leading-edge flaps, and the trailing edge – or posterior area of the wing – is having ailerons and a simple high-lift flap. As a result, the wing’ low loading allows the F-15 to be very manoeuvrable without sacrificing speed in the process. The powerplant (two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 turbofans engines with afterburners) and the avionics also play a role in providing the F-15 with its exceptional qualities: The former by bestowing speeds of up to 2.5 Mach and a good time/altitude ratio, the latter by allowing the crew to track and engage targets at distanced up to 160 km (87 miles) and targets at very low and high altitudes.

The F-15 has proven to be a platform capable of receiving structural and avionics/electronics improvements, further enhancing its combat and flight capabilities, with new radars, computers, weapons controls and armament type, powerplants (Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-220), warning and navigation systems. The F-15 could even receive low visibility technologies, proving the adaptability and capacity of the aircraft to incorporate the latest technologies, as it is the case of the proposed F-15SE Silent Eagle, where its weapons carrying capabilities are proposed to be equally upgraded. This version could co-operate with 5th generation air assets, let alone to almost operate like one.

The F-15 has witnessed action not only in the air campaigns waged by the USA in the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia, but also with other air forces, being the Israeli Air Force where the F-15 have had similar combat intensity, and the Saudi Air Force making some considerable use of their F-15s. With the USAF, the F-15 on its different configurations achieved air superiority by shooting down many air assets of Iraq in air-to-air combats or in the ground, as well as to inflict a serious damage to Iraqi military and governmental infrastructure, contributing at a great extend to the sound victory of the Coalition in 1991. The F-15 even managed to destroy a low flying helicopter with a laser guided bomb. The F-15 kept a watch in enforcing the established no-fly zones after this conflict. The Balkans were another scenario where the F-15s made their presence to be felt, by pounding Serbian ground targets and even scoring 4 enemy kills (Serbian Mig-29s). The Second Iraq War, Afghanistan and strikes against ISIS saw the F-15E mainly in action, attacking important targets on these three scenarios, and even providing Close Air Support (CAS) for the troops in the ground.

With the Israeli Air Force, it achieved its first air-to-air kill, establishing then Israeli air superiority over the skies of Lebanon and against Syrian air assets. It had seen use also as a long-range striker and as a platform for attacking specific targets. Saudi Arabia also had some air kills in the 80’s and during Operation Desert Storm, using the F-15s nowadays to strike important targets in Yemen.

As of now, the F-15 is still in service and production (by Boeing, as McDonnell Douglas was absorbed by this company), with the USAF considering to operate with this fighter until 2025 or 2040 at the latest, and production to be maintained until 2019. So far, 1074 units have been produced (by 2012).

Design

Rear View of the Pratt and Whitney Engines
Rear View of the Pratt and Whitney Engines

The F-15 is an all metal (later on aluminium) semi-monocoque fighter with a shoulder-mounted wing, powered by two engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-100 (F-15A, F-15B and F-15C) or F-100-PW-220 (F-15DJ and F-15 J), or F-100-PW-229 (F-15E). Two engine air intakes are located at each side of the fuselage, starting from the half area of the cockpit with a intake ramp configuration. The wings have a characteristic shape of a cropped delta shape with a leading-edge sweptback of 45 degrees, starting at nearly half of the wing. It lacks of manoeuvring flaps at the leading edge, having only a simple high-lift flap and ailerons at the trailing edge. As the wing has a low loading with high thrust-to-weight ratio, the F-15 can perform tight turns without any loose of speed, capable also of sustaining high G forces. Noteworthy to point out that the airfoil thickness has a variation of 6% at the wing root, to 3% at the wingtip. The empennage is made out of metal, with the two vertical stabilizers made out of honeycomb twin aluminium and composite materials covered with boron-composite skin, allowing them to be thin but very resisting. This means that the F-15 has two tails, the same way as the Grumman F-14 and the Mig 25. The horizontal stabilizers also have a remarkable characteristic of their own, as they have dogtooth within their structural shape, being able to move independently thus increasing control. The aerodynamic brake is located on the top of the fighter’s structure, behind the cockpit. The landing gear is a retractable tricycle. Noteworthy to point out that the F-15E lack of the typical exhaust petals covering the engine nozzles.

The cockpit is placed high in the frontal part of the aircraft, featuring a one-piece windscreen and a large canopy, allowing a full 360 degrees visibility for the pilot. In most F-15 variants the canopy is designed for one pilot. However, the F-15B, F-15D, F-15DJ and F-15E have a canopy designed for a crew of two: a pilot and a weapons officer in the case of the F-15E, and the student and instructor in the case of the training versions.

The wings and the same structure of the fighter allows it to carry a large number of weaponry and other devices. Among the weaponry normally carried by the F-15, there are AIM-7F/M Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM—9L/M Sidewinder, as well as the M61 Vulcan Gatling gun at the right wing root. Other armament the F-15 is usually armed with are a varied array of free-fall and directed bombs, rockets, air-ground or anti-ship missiles, such as the AGM-84K SLAM-ER, AGM-84H Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles, AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile JASSM, AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles, and AGM-154 JSOW missiles. ECM pods, external fuel tanks and low-drag conformal fuel tanks (CTFs), which are attached to the sides of the air intakes and cannot be dropped, are usually among the additional equipment carried by this fighter.

f-15i-raam-israel
F-15l Ra’am – Israeli Air Force

The avionics of the F-15 allow an optimal operationalization of the armament carried by this fighter, as well as its navigation and combat-electronic performance and multi-mission capabilities. Among the avionics of the F-15, it could be accounted: Heads Up Display (HUD), the advanced pulse-Doppler Raytheon radars APG-63 and APG-70, the AN/ASN-109 Inertial Guidance System, the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), ECM pods, Hazeltine AN/APX-76 or Raytheon AN/APX-119 IFF device, Magnavox AN/ALQ-128 Electronic Warfare Warning Set (EWWS), Loral AN/ALR-56 radar warning receiver and a Northrop-Grumman Electronics System ALQ-135 internal counter-measures system. All of these comprise the electronic brain of the fighter, which in combination with the powerplant, the aerodynamics and the weapons systems, makes of the F-15 an outstanding air asset that can achieve supreme control over the skies it operates.

As the design of the F-15 allows adaptation and upgrades, all of the versions were receiving gradual upgrades in avionics and engines, being the F-15E the most prominent. Yet some versions operated by other air forces, such as the Israel Air Force and the Republic of Korea Air Force can receive electronic and avionics components developed by those nations, proving that the Eagle is entirely adaptable to receive technology other than of its country of origin. And its versatility allows combat conversions, explaining why a single airframe can have air superiority, attack or electronic warfare missions, deciding the outcome of any campaign either in the skies or the ground.

An Eagle Not to Mess With

f-15e-grand-canyon
F-15E during aerial refueling operations over the Grand Canyon

The F-15 has proven to be a very powerful asset and a though adversary for those obliged to face it, feeling the powerful strike of the F-15. It has a suitable name that makes honour to its combat capabilities, which have been proven in action from the year it was unleashed. During the 1991 Gulf War and the aftermath, the F-15 achieved air superiority and delivered hard blows to the Iraqi military assets, by scoring 32 fixed-wing aircraft as confirmed kills (Iraqi fighters, fighter/bombers, transport airplanes and trainers that fell under the claws of the F-15), and 4 helicopters as kills. Many of these kills were achieved in air-to-air combats or simply by attacking the Iraqi air assets on the ground, being involved also in the hunt for valuable targets or by watching the skies over Iraq and the Balkans. In the hands of Israel and Saudi Arabia, the F-15 Eagle scored 41 and around 4-5 air kills respectively. With Israel, the F-15 left a deep impression on those that were targeted by its bombs. In the Balkans, the F-15 scored four air kills and equally contributed to pound the Serbian military facilities at Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo.

The Eagle began the 21st century with more capabilities to increase its striking power, as well as seeing more combat in the light of the 9/11 attacks and the campaigns against terrorism. During the Second Iraq war of 2003, the Eagle once and again delivered precision strikes that decimated Iraq’s combat capacities. During the Afghan campaign, it attacked key Taliban and terrorist targets, at the point of even supporting the troops on the ground, and in recent years, it contributed at weakening the military power of Libya during its own Arab Spring, as well as striking important targets in the anti-terrorist campaign over Syria, Libya and Iraq. The F-15 Eagle has been on active duty basically during its entire operational life, being at the very first line.

The Eagle, as a last, could be able to destroy the eyes above the skies, as it was used for experimental tests where it fired a two-staged anti-satellite missile, proving capable for doing so. It has more than fulfilled the requirements set for its development after the nasty experiences of the Vietnam War, war that gave birth to one of the most powerful and memorable birds in all the history of aviation, being the Eagle a milestone by itself.

Variants

  • F-15 Prototypes Series – These series comprised at least 12 different airframes (2 F-15A-1; 3 F-15A-2; 2 F-15A-3; 3 F-15A-4; 1 two-seat F-15B-1 and 1 two-seat F-15B-2), each having a specific purpose during development, like testing the engines, the avionics, the structure, armament and fire control systems, external payload, electronic warfare systems, and even test and demonstrations tasks.
  • F-15A – The first series and operational version of the Eagle, being a single-seat all-weather air superiority fighter version. 384 units delivered.
  • F-15B – Two-seated training version that received once the denomination TF-15A. 61 units delivered.
  • F-15C – An improved version of the single-seat and all-weather superiority fighter version, receiving the last 43 units AN/APG-70 and AN/APG 63(V)1 radar. 483 units delivered.
  • F-15D – Another two-seat version for training purposes. 92 units delivered.
  • F-15E Strike Eagle – The all-weather strike version, as its name indicates, and equipped with conformal external tanks. Optimized for ground attacks, it was one of the main air assets used by the Coalition in Iraq in 1991, by NATO during the Balkans campaigns, the USAF in the second Iraq War, and on neutralizing combat capacities of terrorist groups. introduced in 1987.
  • F-15J – Japan Air Self Defence Force version of the single-seat and all-weather air superiority fighter. 2 units made in the USA, and 139 built under license in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
  • F-15DJ – Japan Air Self Defence two-seat version for training purposes. 12 units built in the USA, and 25 built under license in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
  • F-15SE Silent Eagle – A proposed version with stealth capabilities by reducing the radar cross-section, having also new and specific avionics to be incorporated. This version has given way to the following versions:
  • F-15I Ra’am – Version for Israel and thus operated by the Israeli Air Force with the name of Ra’am or ‘Thunder’. It has two seats and is for ground-attack missions, fitted with Israel-made electronics, including Sharpshooter targeting pods for night-time attacks, Elisra SPS-2110 radar warning receivers, a new central computer and GPS/INS system. Furthermore, the Display and Sight Helmet (DASH) allows the incorporation of all sensors, enhancing targeting. The APG-70I radar allows access to hard targets on the ground, capable also of detecting airliner-size target at distances up to 280 km (182 miles) and a fighter-size target at 104 km (64 miles). It will receive structural reinforcements, AESA radar and new weaponry. Around 25 units.
  • F-15K Slam Eagle – Version for the Republic of Korea (South Korea), with 40% of the airframes comprised of South Korean-made components, including wings, fuselage, avionics, electronics and licence-built engines, with Boeing in charge of final assembly. A first batch was received in 2005 with 40 fighters received, followed by a second batch of 21 units ordered in 2008, having the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engines. This version has its own particularities, just like the F-15I, with an AAS-42 infra-red search and track device, a customized Tactical Electronics Warfare Suite aiming at reducing weight and enhancing jamming effectiveness, cockpit compatibility with NVG, and VHF/UHF radio with a Fighter Data Link system. Moreover, it is fitted with an advanced APG-63(V)1 mechanical-scanned array radar, upgradable to AESA radar, and having a Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The armament is pretty ‘unique’ as well, as it carries AGM-84K SLAM-ER, AGM-84H Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles, and AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile JASSM (a low observable standoff and long range cruise missile).
  • F-15S and SA – Variant supplied and developed for Saudi Arabia, with the F-15S having the AN/APG-70 radar and General Electric F110-GE-129C. The F-15SA will incorporate fly-by-wire flight control technologies (that will allow the carriage of weaponry on the unused wing stations, APG-63(V)3 AESA radar, digital electronic warfare systems, infra-red search and track systems and a redesigned cockpit.
  • F-15SG (or F-15T) – Version operated by the Republic of Singaporean Air Force (RSAF) with 24 units. These units operate with AIM-120C and AIM-9X missiles, GBU-38 JDAM bombs and AGM-154 JSOW missiles, complemented with NVG and Link 16 terminals, powered by General Electric F110 engines.
  • F-15QA – 72 units that will be delivered for the Qatar Air Force.
  • F-15H Strike Eagle – A proposed version for Greece (H stand for Hellas, the Greek name of the country) that did not advanced further, as the Greek government chose instead Mirage 2000-5 and F-16.
  • F-15G Wild Weasel – A proposed two-seat version to replace the F-4G in Suppression of Enemy Air Defences tasks, but the F-16 received such capabilities, and the F-15E was capable of carrying anti-radar missiles, like the AGM-88 HARM, thus performing SEAD roles.
  • F-15N Sea Eagle and F-15N-PHX – A carrier capable version proposed in the early 70’s as an alternative to the Grumman F-14 Tomcat. The F-15N-PHX was also a proposed naval version for the US Navy, capable of carrying the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. As naval versions, these featured structural reinforcement at the wingtips, the landing gear and a tailhook for carrier operations. These versions would never see action as the US Navy decided to carry on with the Tomcat.
  • F-15 2040C – A proposed upgrading programme for the F-15C to enable co-operation with the F-22, with characteristics similar to those of the F-15SE and having more air capabilities and combat power. Infra-red search and track, instalment of quad racks (increasing the missile carriage up to 16), Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, conformal fuel tanks, upgraded radar (APG-63(V)3 AESA, and a Thalon HATE communications pod for co-operation with the F-22 are among the proposed upgrades.
  • F-15 Streak Eagle – A research unit without painting and avionics, which broke time-to-climb records. Now part of the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
  • F-15 STOL/MTD – Another experimental unit for short-take-off/manoeuvre technology demonstrator, incorporating canards before the main wings, thrust-vectoring nozzles, and vectorised engine thrusts.
  • F-15 ACTIVE – A modification of the F-15 S/MTD with thrust vectoring nozzles for advanced flight control research. The acronym ‘ACTIVE’ stands for Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles. NASA, Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies, the USAF, West Palm Beach and McDonnell Douglas Aerospace are in charge of the program. This unit is powered by Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-229 engines fitted with modified axisymmetric vectoring nozzles
  • F-15 IFCS – Conversion of the F-15 Active into a research aircraft for intelligent flight control systems.
  • F-15 MANX – Intended tailless variant of the F-15 Active that was never materialized.
  • F-15 Flight Research Facility – Two F-15 A acquired by NASA (Dryden Flight Research Center) for Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control, Adaptive Engine Control System, Self-Repairing and Self-Diagnostic Flight Control System, and Propulsion Controlled Aircraft System experiments.
  • F-15B Research Testbed – Used by NASA (Dryden Flight Research Center) for flight tests.

Operator

  • United States of America
    The F-15 is operated mainly by three services or institutions in the United States. One is the USAF, which operates around 255 F-15 of the C/D versions, with the Air National Guard being the second service and operating 140 of them. In addition, the USAF operates 213 F-15E. Many of USAF F-15 saw extensive action in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Iraq in 1990 and 1991. On these operations, F-15 of C and D versions gained air superiority, killing 5 Iraqi Mig-29, 2 Mig-25, 8 Mig-23, two Mig-21, 2 Su-25, 4 Su-22, one Su-7, six Mirage F1, one Ilyushin Il-76 cargo airplane, one Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and 2 Mil-8 helicopters. In the 1999 Kosovo campaign, four Serbian Mig-29 were scored as kills by the F-15C.Meanwhile, the F-15E’s hunted SCUD launchers, engaged against Iraqi Mig-29 fighters and even shot down a Mil-24 Hind with a bomb, losing only two units. Iraqi air assets were also destroyed by the F-15E, as well as enemy armoured assets in Kuwait, engaging also in operations intended at killing Saddam Hussein. Operations Southern Watch and Northern Watch, which followed in the aftermath of the Gulf War, saw the F-15E enforcing the no-fly zone, managing to cause one Iraqi helicopter – a Hind – that was attacking a Kurdish site to crash. They also destroyed SAM sites and radars, as well as command and control sites, radio communications and relay stations, and radars. They also executed surveillance and reconnaissance, mission practicing and even strikes against the Iraqi Republican Guard and Baath Party HQs (Operation Southern Watch).In the Balkans, the F-15E were used to strike Serbian targets in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo mainly against armour, logistical, and air defences weapons and facilities targets of Serbia, where it executed for the first time, stand-off attacks with the AGM-130 missile. Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom saw the deployment of USAF F-15E for the second time in Iraq and in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attacks. In Afghanistan, the F-15E engaged in strikes against Taliban and terrorist targets – military structures, supply depots, training camps, and caves – as well as in CAS missions, where they gave support fire to a SEAL team whose helicopter was shot down. In Iraq, in turn, the F-15E attacked key military and governmental sites, airfields – 65 Migs destroyed – and decimating 60% of the Iraqi Medina Republican Guard.Libya, Syria and Iraq are the areas the USAF F-15E are currently in action, attacking ISIS terrorist training camps, facilities, command and control facilities and even vehicles and trucks. But the USAF utilization of the F-15 did not stopped there, as in fact made the Eagle capable of firing anti-satellite missiles from 1984 to 1988, although on an experimental basis.The older F-15C and F-15D models are to be upgraded and to be operated beyond 2025, while the A and B versions were retired after being operated by the Air National Guard. They are intended to be gradually replaced by F-22 and F-35.NASA is the third US operator with a single unit for experimental purposes.
  • Israel
    Israel is another operator of the F-15, which have seen extensive action with the Israel Air Force since 1977. Among its inventory, Israel has F-15A, F-15B, F-15C, F-15D and F-15I, where the F-15 scored its first ait-to-air kill over the skies of Syria by Israeli ace Moshe Melnik. They also saw extensive action over Lebanon, taking down 13 Mig-21 and 2 Mig-25 of the Syrian Air Force. They also escorted the F-16I during Operation Opera, an Israeli strike against an Iraqi nuclear plant, and during the Lebanese Civil War, the Israeli F-15 scored 23 Mig-21, 17 Mig-23 and one Gazelle SA.342L helicopter as air kills. They also attacked a terrorist headquarters in Tunis in 1985, as Israel was the first one in exploiting the air and ground capabilities of the F-15 as well as its range. The F-15I, in turn, can operate Israeli-made infra-red homing missiles in coordination with a helmet mounted sight, as well as air-to-air missiles.
  • Japan
    Japan is another prominent operator of the F-15, as it has license-built version that fulfil its own requirements. The Japan Air Self-Defence Force therefore operates 12 F-15DJ for training purposes, and nearly 155 F-15J for their standard role of air superiority and ground-attack.
  • South Korea
    The Asian nation has enrolled 58 F-15K Slam Eagle, defeating very capable fighters such as Dassault Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Sukhoi S-35 during the selection program process for a new fighter. The Korean F-15 incorporate many electronics and avionics components made in South Korea, as well as enhanced radars and other equipment, being mostly assembled in South Korea.
  • Singapore
    40 F-15G are operated by the Republic of Singapore Air Force.
  • Saudi Arabia
    The Middle East Kingdom received 75 F-15C and F-15D, seeing action for the first time in 1984, shooting down two Iranian F-4E Phantom II during an aerial skirmish. The Saudi F-15 would also see action in the 1991 Gulf War, killing two Mirage F-1 of the Iraqi Air Force, losing one during the conflict. Later on, Saudi F-15S have co-operated with Saudi Panavia Tornados in strikes against Houthi insurgents in Yemen, as part of Saudi-led efforts against this group, concentrating on air defence sites, army HQ, airfields, ballistic missile depots and launchers. A single F-15S was lost during the operation’s early stages. This nation has also received F-15SA.

 

F-15C Specifications

Wingspan  13,05 m / 42 ft 10 in
Length  19,43 m / 63 ft 9 in
Height  18,6 m / 13 ft 5,63 in
Wing Area  56,5 m² / 608 ft²
Engine  2 X Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-100 or PW-200 or PW-229 afterburning turbofans
Maximum Take-Off Weight  30845 Kg / 68,000 lb
Empty Weight  12700 kg / 28,000 lb
Loaded Weight  20200 kg / 44,500 lb
Climb Rate  more than 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Maximum Speed  At high altitude: Mach 2,5+ (2665+ km/h / 1,650+ mph), At low altitude: Mach.1,2 (1450 km/h / 900 mph)
Range  1967 Km / 1,222 miles for combat radius; 5550 Km / 3,450 miles on ferry
Maximum Service Ceiling  20000 m /65,000 ft
Crew  1 (pilot)
Armament
  • 1 X 20mmM61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon
  • 11 hardpoints – two under-wing with each having a pair of missile launch rails, four under-fuselage, and a central pylon station – that could allow up to 7300 kg (16,000 lb) of payload and provisions. This payload could be carried in combination of: 4 X AIM-7 Sparrow; 4 X AIM-9 Sidewinder; 8 X AIM-120 AMRAAM; or 3 external fuel drop tanks of 2300 lts (600 US gallons) or 1 MXU648 Cargo/Travel pod to carry personal belongings or maintenance equipment.
  • Among the avionics of the fighter, that complements its armament and allows a maximization of use and combat, the F-15C has: Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS); Raytheon AN/PG 63 or AN/PG 70 radars; Northrop-Grumman Electronics system ECM pod; Hazeltine AN/APX-76 or Raytheon AN/APX-119 IFF device; a Magnavox AN/ALQ-128 Electronic Warfare Warning Set (EWWS); a Loral AN/ALR-56 radar warning receiver; a Northrop-Grumman Electronics System ALQ-135 internal counter-measures system; and chaff/flares.

Gallery

1-f-15c-81-0040-zz_03
F-15C 81-0040 – Kadena AB Okinawa, Japan
1-f-15a-77-0124-ma_03
F-15A 77-0124 – Massachusetts ANG
1-f-15d-86-0182-ln_03
F-15D 86-0182 Lakenheath, England
F-15C 80-0010 Aggressor Nellis AFB, Nevada
F-15E 01-2004A LN RAF Lakenheath, UK
F-15J 72-8885 Nyutabaru AB, Miyazaki Japan
F-15J 02-8920 Naha AB, Okinawa Japan

 

 

Sources

Berger, R (Ed.). Aviones [Flugzeuge, Vicenç Prat, trans.]. Colonia, Alemania: Naumann & Göbel Verlagsgessellschaft mbH., Boeing. (2016). F-15 Strike Eagle. Boeing. Retrieved from: http://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15-strike-eagle/ on 06.12.2016, Chambers, J. R. (2000). Partners in Freedom. Contributions of the Langley Research Center to US Military Aircraft of the 1990’s (NASA monograph NASA SP-2000-4519). NASA History Division: Washington DC, USA. Retrieved from: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/pdf/70897main_PiF.pdf on 25.11.2016, Sharpe, M (2001). Jets de Ataque y Defensa [Attack and Interceptor Jets, Macarena Rojo, trans.]. Madrid, Spain: Editorial LIBSA (Original work published in 2001)., Donald. D. (2009). Aviones Militares, Guia Visual [Military Aircraft. Visual Guide, Seconsat, trans.]. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Libsa (Original work published in 2008)., Dudney, R. S, &. Boyne, W. J (December 2015). Airpower Classics. F-15 Eagle/Strike Eagle. Air Force Magazine, 98 (12), 76. Retrieved from: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2015/December%202015/1215classics.pdf on 25.11.2016, GlobalSecurity.org. (2011). F-15 Eagle Fighter. GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15.htm on 07.12.2016, Lemoin, J (2002). Fighter Planes. 1960-2002. Retrieved from: http://sim-deck.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/fighter-planes%201960-2002.pdf on 07.12.2016, Neufeld, J. (1974). The F-15 Eagle. Origins and Development, 1964-1972. Office of Air Force History: USA. Retrieved from: http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120516-036.pdf on 25.11.2016, Smolka, J. W., Walker, L. A., Maj. Johnson, G. H., Schkolnik, G.S., Berger, C. W., Conners, T, R., Orme, J. S., Shy, K. S., Wood, C. B. (n.d.). F-15 ACTIVE Flight Research Program. Retrieved from: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/89247main_setp_d6.pdf on 25.11.2016, US Government Accountability Office. (2012). Tactical Aircraft: Comparison of F-22A and Legacy Fighter Modernization Programs (Report GAO-12-524). US Government Accountability Office: Washington DC, USA. Retrieved from: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590505.pdf on 25.11.2016, Wikipedia on the MacDonnell Douglas F-15: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle, Wikipedia on the McDonnel Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle, Wikipedia on the McDonnell Douglas F-15Stol/MTD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD, Wikipedia on the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle Images: F-15E Grand Canyon by darinm16 / CC BY-ND 2.0, F-15l Raam – Israel by mykaul / CC BY-ND 2.0, F-15 Engines by Rennett Stowe / CC BY 2.0, F-15A Display by Clemens Vasters / CC BY 2.0, F-15E Banking by Jez / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0Side Profile Views by Ed Jackson – Artbyedo.com