> > > Barnhart wrote:
 > > >
 > > > While working with B 52s for a short while, they mentioned they

would

 > practice the "sam slip" or "sam maneuver" where they evade sams

over

 > unfriendly skies in southeast Asia.  Any idea how that went?
 > > >
 > > > Barny

 > Hi Barny
 >
 > I flew EB 66s in Southeast Asia and flew B-52s during the "Cold

War" as an

 > Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) and have a degree of familarity

with SAMS.

 > The SA-2 SAM system predominately used by the NV during the war
was an older
 > Soviet Design (but with a big 400KG warhead).  Its principal

intercept

 > algorithm was based on constant velocity of the target.  Therefore

any

 > "Acceleration" that could be introduced to the problem degraded its
 > accuracy.  This short coming resulted in maneuvers designed to

introduce

 > varying acceleration factor into the guidance equation and thereby

degrade

 > the SAMs accuracy.  Together with jamming of the SAMs radar and

dumping

 > "Chaff" it would hopefully degrade the SAM sufficient for a miss.
 >
 > Later in the war, there was a lot of controversy over whether the

B-52

 > performing SAM maneuvers was effective.  The argument went that it

exposed

 > the B-52 longer, that it caused the aircraft's Jamming pattern

(foot print)

 > to be less effective due to the shifting geometric footprint due to

the

 > aircraft's unusual attitude, etc.  In fact, there was a letter

published by

 > one of the B-52 units which threatened disciplinary action to B-52

crews

 > which took evasive action.  You can imagine the roil that created.
 >
 > Fighters (and EB-66s) would do the same thing with more radical

maneuvers

 > such as turning into the SAM or going into a steep dive, hard turn.
 >
 > I can verify that the maneuver if used properly and at the right

time could

 > save your butt.
 >
 > Ed Anderson
 > Matthews, NC

Hi Ed:

        I had heard that maneuvering worked because the A/C could turn

harder

than the SAM ( when it was close ) due the small control surfaces,
speed, etc. Thank
you for sharing your first-hand knowledge.

Regards,
James

Hi James,

    Yes, you are also correct. Several factors such as putting acceleration
factors into the guidance equation, jamming and degradation of their
tracking/guidance information, and  forcing the missile into hard turns that
would exceed its aerodynamic control authority all could contribute to a
miss.  Clearly aircraft like F-4s and F105s could pull hard "Gs" at the
right moment and get a miss, but that was tricky business and if your timing
was off - well, I need say no more. Other types such as the B-52 could, of
course, not pull as radical a maneuver so frequently a continuos "S" turn
was employed to induce acceleration factors into the guidance equation.

There was also all sorts of counter operator tricks.  Surprisingly one of
the more effective ones was to focus all your jamming energy on the FanSong
tracking radar forcing the operators to turn down the gain on their
receivers to reduce your jamming to a "strobe" on their scopes rather than
having the jamming causing the entire scope to "bloom".  Well, give the SAM
operator a few seconds of angle tracking on your jamming strobe and then
turn off your jammers.  The jamming strobe would disappear off their scope
and they would then have to turn the receiver gain back up to acquire the
skin paint and then while the gain was up you again hit it them with you
jammers causing the scope to bloom, etc.

As you might imagine the more tools of the trade you could employ the better
the odds of of a miss.
Some tactics worked for some aircraft/equipment suites and different ones
for others.  The ultimate "video game".

Ed

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org