The most prestigious air to air kill in history?

[TLAM Strike]

A NATO warplane on Monday shot down a Scud missile fired from Sirte...
Wait, what? :doh:

What was this pilot flying? An X-15! :haha:

Anyone know where the X-37Bs are? :shifty:

Source (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/08/libya-nato-shoots-down-scud-missile-fired-by-kadafi-forces.html)

[Stealhead]

Way too little information there how is that even possible honestly? Unless maybe the plane fired an air to ground munition just as the Scud launched because I don't see other wise this would really be possible a Scud would be far to fast I'd think for a missile the Patriots can hit something coming down to earth but that is using a lot more ability than an aircraft would have.:hmmm:

I am thinking an ATG munition was used and just so happened that the Scud was just launching when hit so they considered it an air to air kill.Or it was just perfect timing and the ac was at the right place at the right time and did fire and got a hit.

[Anthony W.]

Early in the acceleration stage of the launch, I'm sure a sharp pilot could get lucky.

In Vietnam you could "out run" a SAM by going into a semi parabolic pattern at full power

[CaptainHaplo]

This is not nearly as difficult as it is thought to be. Your dealing with a ballistic missile here. Its not like a cruise missile where its going flat out horizontally. The only struggle is if the shooter acquires the target from the rear quadrant. Otherwise, its not difficult depending on the weapon used.

The issue is really one of math - and one that us subsimmers use alot when we play. Target is moving a course X, speed Y. It will be at a certain point at a certain moment in time. Make your shot hit (or get close enough to FOD out) the target. 20 years ago the Patriot system proved that computers could pull off this trick at extreme speeds in three dimensions. Now, 2 decades later, increases in technology (not just computer power) has allowed other weapons to do the same.

You only have to have a weapon that moves faster than your target if your chasing it.... if you have a good angle (and remember - the Scud-C is designed to follow a ballistic trajectory) then the shot is high percentage.

What goes up, comes down - and in a predictable way. Your shot can move at a relatively slow 1.5 Mach against a Mach 5 target if your ahead (or - from another perspective - below) your target and close enough to its course.....

Think about it... 20 years is a long time in weapons tech....

[I-25]

Lets not forget that a B-24 Rear gunner shot down a V2 during its acceleration stage in WWII

[Jimbuna]

Would like to see more detailed information but I would have thought it possible, especially if it was during the early launch phase.

[razark]

Lets not forget that a B-24 Rear gunner shot down a V2 during its acceleration stage in WWII
You have a source for that? I'd like to read that story.

[Jimbuna]

For my money I don't think you can beat the feat of the WWII fighter pilots who physically tipped the wings/fins of the V-1 rockets...up real close and personal like.

[Osmium Steele]

You have a source for that? I'd like to read that story.

About 80% of them reached their targets, with just a
single missile being shot down – by a .50-inch machine gun in an American
Liberator bomber returning from a raid over Germany, which overflew a
V-2 launch site in the Hague just when a missile lifted off.


SOURCE (http://web.archive.org/web/20090326041549/http://www.cdiss.co.uk/Documents/Uploaded/Missile%20Defence%20-%20Then%20and%20Now.pdf)

[Oberon]

Well, that's the ABM program out the window then, Congress will just ask the Airforce to be the new ballistic missile shield to save money.

[Rockstar]

For my money I don't think you can beat the feat of the WWII fighter pilots who physically tipped the wings/fins of the V-1 rockets...up real close and personal like.


I was thinking the same thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Spitfire_Tipping_V-1_Flying_Bomb.jpg

[razark]

SOURCE (http://web.archive.org/web/20090326041549/http://www.cdiss.co.uk/Documents/Uploaded/Missile%20Defence%20-%20Then%20and%20Now.pdf)
Thank you.

[Osmium Steele]

Most welcome. :up:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I was thinking the same thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Spitfire_Tipping_V-1_Flying_Bomb.jpgMe too. I would assume this to be a bit risky tactic. Do anyone know did there happen any mishaps when doing this?

[MH]

Me too. I would assume this to be a bit risky tactic. Do anyone know did there happen any mishaps when doing this?

As far as i can remember from reading some books it sometimes ended with shattered wing tips of a fighter plane when V1 giro kicked in to stabilize the flight.
The pilot had to flip the wing beyond the correction point.
This tactics was used to avoid shooting on V1 which occasionally exploded in mid air.

[Stealhead]

Early in the acceleration stage of the launch, I'm sure a sharp pilot could get lucky.

In Vietnam you could "out run" a SAM by going into a semi parabolic pattern at full power


I think you mean to say out maneuver not out run if a pilot knew where an SA2 was coming from then he could perform a sharp turn(or semi parabolic pattern if wish to sound overly complicated) in the direction of the SAMs flight path this was outside the the tracking abilities of the guidance system because the SA2 was not able to turn at such a rate and explode its shrapnel into the target(larger SAMs want to explode proximity not contact) seeing as it flew at mach 3.5 outrunning it in a mach 2 aircraft like the F-4 is impossible at combat loads double impossible.You'd also be popping chaff if you had it.Also running a true semi parabolic pattern would be suicide because the North Vietnamese very often fired 2 or 3 SAMs at one aircraft with the express intention to nullify such a tactic this is why during Vietnam we began using aircraft for electronic warfare and others to hunt and kill SAM radars (Wild Weasel) because the most reliable way to avoid a SAM is to disable it from attacking you in the first place.

The Soviets learned this and started making the SA3 which witch was more maneuverable and had better ground radar systems in 1972 and they had a devastating effect on the IDAF during Yom Kippur in 1973.The IDF did not have effect SAM counter measures at the time.

[Jimbuna]

I was thinking the same thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Spitfire_Tipping_V-1_Flying_Bomb.jpg

That picture is the only one I've ever found over the years...does anyone know of any more in existence?

[RickC Sniper]

What was the purpose of doing this dangerous tactic? Did it throw the V1 off course enough to matter? They weren't exactly known for precision targeting in the first place.
:06:

[razark]

What was the purpose of doing this dangerous tactic? Did it throw the V1 off course enough to matter? They weren't exactly known for precision targeting in the first place.
:06:
The purpose was to tip the V1 enough so that its guidance system would go crazy and it would crash. It can't hurt anyone if it just crashes in the water.

[Tchocky]

What was the purpose of doing this dangerous tactic? Did it throw the V1 off course enough to matter? They weren't exactly known for precision targeting in the first place.
:06:

As the boundary layer airflow separates from the wing at the tip, it creates a strong outward/rearward vortex.
The V1 had extremely limited correctional autopilot abilities, so kicking it off it's level roll axis would send it into a terminal spin, crashing short of target. The vortex from the Spit/Jug/Tempest could do this.

[Anthony W.]

I think you mean to say out maneuver not out run if a pilot knew where an SA2 was coming from then he could perform a sharp turn(or semi parabolic pattern if wish to sound overly complicated) in the direction of the SAMs flight path this was outside the the tracking abilities of the guidance system because the SA2 was not able to turn at such a rate and explode its shrapnel into the target(larger SAMs want to explode proximity not contact) seeing as it flew at mach 3.5 outrunning it in a mach 2 aircraft like the F-4 is impossible at combat loads double impossible.You'd also be popping chaff if you had it.Also running a true semi parabolic pattern would be suicide because the North Vietnamese very often fired 2 or 3 SAMs at one aircraft with the express intention to nullify such a tactic this is why during Vietnam we began using aircraft for electronic warfare and others to hunt and kill SAM radars (Wild Weasel) because the most reliable way to avoid a SAM is to disable it from attacking you in the first place.

The Soviets learned this and started making the SA3 which witch was more maneuverable and had better ground radar systems in 1972 and they had a devastating effect on the IDAF during Yom Kippur in 1973.The IDF did not have effect SAM counter measures at the time.

I was talking to an F-105 pilot who told me that you could get the guidance confused (if you couldn't turn into it) by pitching up and down (can't remember specific G forces required) and as the missile tried to follow, the size of the missile's parabola kept increasing until it either ran out of fuel, hit the ground, or simply quit tracking.

I shall do further investigation to verify...

*I HAVE DIAGRAM* - editing to fit purpose...

PS: In the Wings Over series by Thirdwire, I can always defeat an AIM-9 or AA-2 Atoll with a sharp inside loop

[AVGWarhawk]

For my money I don't think you can beat the feat of the WWII fighter pilots who physically tipped the wings/fins of the V-1 rockets...up real close and personal like.

:up:

That took some balls!

[Anthony W.]

:up:

That took some balls!

Or the Dam Busters...

Or those brave bomber crews that just refused to give up the ship and made it back to England on a wing (or lack thereof) and a prayer (or hundreds)

[RickC Sniper]

Thanks for the info. I had no idea they could do this.

[TLAM Strike]

The Soviets learned this and started making the SA3 which witch was more maneuverable and had better ground radar systems in 1972 and they had a devastating effect on the IDAF during Yom Kippur in 1973.The IDF did not have effect SAM counter measures at the time.

I thought it was the SA-6 'GAINFUL' that the IDF had so much trouble with in '72? Like in the beginning of The Sum of All Fears.

SA-3 was as old as the SA-2 at that time.

:hmmm:

[Raptor1]

The SA-6 was the major killer in the Yom Kippur War (Which was in 1973, BTW). It caught the IAF completely by surprise and led to a large amount of losses.

EDIT: Nevermind about my estimates, I was thinking of something completely different. Gah, that's the second time that happened today. In either case, it was by far the most effective Arab SAM system in the war.

[MH]

I thought it was the SA-6 'GAINFUL'

:hmmm:

:yep:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I thought it was the SA-6 'GAINFUL' that the IDF had so much trouble with in '72? Like in the beginning of The Sum of All Fears.

SA-3 was as old as the SA-2 at that time.

:hmmm:

I actually watched that for the first time last night - I'm sorry I couldn't recall what they used though! :03:

Thought it mostly a good film.

[TLAM Strike]

I actually watched that for the first time last night - I'm sorry I couldn't recall what they used though! :03:

Thought it mostly a good film.

Yes it was a good film, although I didn't like that they swapped the Arab terrorists from the novel for Neo-Nazis and the chopper crash was totally wrong (at least the director admitted it in the commentary).

[FIREWALL]

Me too. I would assume this to be a bit risky tactic. Do anyone know did there happen any mishaps when doing this?


If it got to close it might blow the Tail off the B-24 :o .:oops:

I don't think the Tail Gunner or Pilot would be to happy. :-?

[TLAM Strike]

PS: In the Wings Over series by Thirdwire, I can always defeat an AIM-9 or AA-2 Atoll with a sharp inside loop

If you can draw your enemy in to a turning fight you can also prevent him from firing it in the first place, at more than 4 Gs or so the older Fox 2s can't track at all even if he is matching your turn while on your tail.

At least that was always my experience in Wings over Europe.

[Stealhead]

I was talking to an F-105 pilot who told me that you could get the guidance confused (if you couldn't turn into it) by pitching up and down (can't remember specific G forces required) and as the missile tried to follow, the size of the missile's parabola kept increasing until it either ran out of fuel, hit the ground, or simply quit tracking.

I shall do further investigation to verify...

*I HAVE DIAGRAM* - editing to fit purpose...

PS: In the Wings Over series by Thirdwire, I can always defeat an AIM-9 or AA-2 Atoll with a sharp inside loop


The Wings Over Vietnam sim? That is a poor example way too easy physics in that game(although I do like that game or the mod for it).I am basing this on a friend who is an intel officer in the USAF part of his job is to know the capabilities of all threats to our aircraft including SAM systems obviously the basic rule has not changed for a radar guided SAM the pilot must fly along the "beam" of the missile track and this depends on the flight pattern the missile is showing when gets the MK1 eyeball on it.He may need to bank hard into the beam or bank into and down towards the beam depending on the situation agnist more modern system the pilot may also need to barrel roll and then "counter the beam" the role is an attempt to confuse the missile the USAF actually has examples of every SAM radar system in use so they know them in and out.

The pilot you talked to sounds like he was a Wild Weasel pilot he probably flew an F-105F or G(though he first likely learned in the D model fighter/ bomber) the pattern you mention would make sense as that would be attractive to a SAM battery in reality he is reusing them into firing so that another WW 105 can acquire the radar and kill the SAM batteries radar after which the SAM is just a giant telephone pole.

Have you ever played Falcon 4.0? That game has fairly realistic physics and AI including SAM guidance and evasion.I imagine DCS A-10 does as well as in DCS Black Shark the missiles seemed pretty hard to evade and they where believable in LOCK ON Flaming Cliffs which the DCS games use the same engine more or less.

TLAM I have done exactly what you mention in WOE once in an A-10 I had 4 MiG-21s on me so I just got very low (which causes ground clutter) and kept turning they fired missile after missile and none came even close.

[Anthony W.]

The Wings Over Vietnam sim? That is a poor example way too easy physics in that game(although I do like that game or the mod for it).I am basing this on a friend who is an intel officer in the USAF part of his job is to know the capabilities of all threats to our aircraft including SAM systems obviously the basic rule has not changed for a radar guided SAM the pilot must fly along the "beam" of the missile track and this depends on the flight pattern the missile is showing when gets the MK1 eyeball on it.He may need to bank hard into the beam or bank into and down towards the beam depending on the situation agnist more modern system the pilot may also need to barrel roll and then "counter the beam" the role is an attempt to confuse the missile the USAF actually has examples of every SAM radar system in use so they know them in and out.

The pilot you talked to sounds like he was a Wild Weasel pilot he probably flew an F-105F or G(though he first likely learned in the D model fighter/ bomber) the pattern you mention would make sense as that would be attractive to a SAM battery in reality he is reusing them into firing so that another WW 105 can acquire the radar and kill the SAM batteries radar after which the SAM is just a giant telephone pole.

Have you ever played Falcon 4.0? That game has fairly realistic physics and AI including SAM guidance and evasion.I imagine DCS A-10 does as well as in DCS Black Shark the missiles seemed pretty hard to evade and they where believable in LOCK ON Flaming Cliffs which the DCS games use the same engine more or less.

TLAM I have done exactly what you mention in WOE once in an A-10 I had 4 MiG-21s on me so I just got very low (which causes ground clutter) and kept turning they fired missile after missile and none came even close.

Wasn't using WoV as an example - just making that statement.

The F-105 pilot was a real person lol

[Molon Labe]

Yes it was a good film, although I didn't like that they swapped the Arab terrorists from the novel for Neo-Nazis and the chopper crash was totally wrong (at least the director admitted it in the commentary).


commentary track: Hi, I'm so and so, the director.
TC: Hi, I'm Tom Clancy. I'm the guy whose book they didn't read.

[TLAM Strike]

commentary track: Hi, I'm so and so, the director.
TC: Hi, I'm Tom Clancy. I'm the guy whose book they didn't read.
I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one who listens to those things! :haha:

(Not the first time its happened with his books :( )

[Stealhead]

Wasn't using WoV as an example - just making that statement.

The F-105 pilot was a real person lol

I did not say that he was not a real person(read second paragraph) I said that based on what you say he told you it sounds like he was a Wild Weasel F-105f or G pilot.How those guys flew an F-105 and how the guys that flew the "dump truck" bomber F-105Ds is very different.And the only game Vietnam related by Thirdwire is Wings Over Vietnam they make all the Wings Over sims.Most of the first and second paragraphs are referring to "real world" the rest is referring to sims.