Radar Scopes

[@spiritofattack]

Yes, the F-106 was an upgraded model of the F-102. Very much upgraded. Much more powerful engine, better radar, better computer. We said the F-106 was the "sports model" -- that the engine was so powerful that it seemed that the airspeed was directly connected to the throttle! In the F-102, I seldom went supersonic. In the F-106, I could go supersonic by accident (not allowed to go supersonic over populated areas). I did fly the F-106 to Mach 2 many times, but I was more impressed that I could maneuver at Mach 1.5, and made radar attacks at Mach 1.8. The F-106 also had more range, and our high altitude cruise left fighters like the F-4 far below and behind. The radar scope was somewhat different from the F-102, but close enough so this video shows pretty well what an F-106 scope looked like.

[@_RAF_SkyRider_]

Hello, sir! If i am not mistaken you have an own book about your serve and flights? Note me a short comment here with the name of it, please i'gonna find it! Salute from Russia!

[@spiritofattack]

_SkyRider_ “The Spirit of Attack “ is available on Amazon.com. Lots of flying and combat. Includes unpublished stories my friends told me about their most exciting missions.

[@spiritofattack]

_SkyRider_ Ah, yes - Russia! I have read a lot of your history and visited as a tourist in 2002. I loved your WW II museum in Moscow and the memorials to the Siege of Leningrad!

[@_RAF_SkyRider_]

@@spiritofattack Thank you for the name of your book! Plesure to here you'be been visited us! I was born in 80 year and may to say Russia of 2002 still had a lot of USSR legacy. That was quite poor period, a lot of mess I mean. Now Russia is much more good looking country! Long live you sir!

[@spiritofattack]

@@_RAF_SkyRider_ I am an old man, but I sure liked your beautiful Russian girls! You have some of the best! Where in Russia do you live?

[@threexfromwsg]

We need this is dcs.

[@ellyrion8173]

Honestly I wish we had more older aircraft in DCS - they're much less likely to have aspects about them that are still classified and make for a really rewarding experience IMO

[@rossmum]

I'd love a 106 in DCS. Modern FBW wonders bore me, but more old stuff (and especially more deltas!) would be awesome. I love working with the janky older radars, the MiG-21's is awesome to use but quite a bit more limited in capability than this.

[@agostonbazmajer1100]

@@rossmum Honestly, these are my dream eras. Early Cold War interceptors from an era where soviet bombers with nukes were a legitimate threat, but my overall favourite stuff would be a Vietnam map with all the Air Force and Navy jets, especially the Navy ones. Doing a low level strike in an A6 sounds like something that would be really fun in DCS. You'd have something that has decent performance even when loaded and it would have a lot of pretty cool systems for the BN to fiddle with.

[@IamN0-1]

I agree, unfortunately you would see a whole lot of sandboxers get salty cause the "6" would pip them right out of the sky

[@RCAvhstape]

Very cool stuff. I once trained to fix radar sets years ago and they were old analog devices with displays similar to this, and some of the modules were purposely built with vacuum tubes to train us to fix those as well as solid state electronics. What fascinated me was how a fire control radar locked on to a target. The trainer model I worked with had a moving subreflector on the antenna that would spin as a deliberate speed, causing radar pulses to be sent outward in sort of hexagonal shotgun pattern. The pulses were synced to the machine such that if one pulse had a stronger return than the other five, the antenna would steer in the direction of the strongest pulse until the signals were all equal in strength. Thus the antenna was "locked on" to the target. The antenna gimbal has sensors on it that tell you where the antenna is pointed, and this is how the machine knows where to display the target on the scope. Our trainer used dummy loads and targets; I never got to see it used on a real airborne target. I wondered if we could sneak the radar set up to the roof of the building and see if we could track real targets but that wasn't going to happen since the whole thing was spread around the lab in large fixtures and probably used a ton of power. Plus we idiots would've hurt somebody or something with all that RF energy we were playing with ha ha. Modern flat panel antennas are phased arrays that can steer signals without physically moving the antenna, and of course all the electronics are now fully solid state and use digital signal processing. As with newer cars, newer electronics just isn't as much fun to tinker with, though it works better.

[@spiritofattack]

Helium Road - that’s a good description of how tracking works. Both radar and IR used the spinning disc to track the target. It was called “nutation”. It is included in my video on ECM.

[@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd]

I was wondering how a system could have almost AI tech in the tube era. Thanks for that explanation, found it very well explained for a layman.

[@geodeaholicm4889]

@@spiritofattack the texan ingenuity & cleverness of the inventors of that tech is amazing.

[@fim-43redeye31]

Interestingly, modern flat panel antennas are a lot of fun to play with in SOFTWARE because of all the complicated beamforming that can be done, even if the hardware is a lot more boring. Having essentially thousands of tiny antennae allows for a lot of crazy things.

[@noahway13]

There seems to be a stage in tech where all of a sudden, it gets easier. My mom refused to learn cell phones - she couldn't remember all the new-fangled crap. But once they got over the hurdle, and she could just speak to it, now she loves it.

[@thomasosterloh8247]

Good to see you back again.

[@spiritofattack]

@Thomas Osterloh -- I am isolated at home due to COVID-19, so it's giving me a chance to improve my green screen video technology!

[@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd]

Loved the pilot ditty

[@mikewysko2268]

That F102 photo looks great. I am guessing Bruce has a fantastic aircraft photo collection.🇺🇸

[@spiritofattack]

@Mike Wysko -- I wish I had taken more! Our cameras were heavy and bulky, very hard to carry in a cramped fighter cockpit. A camera takes two hands -- so who is flying the fighter? Film was expensive, and we got lots of warnings about secrecy. In my "Something BIG" videos, I was carrying a big Air Force camera with a nice telephoto lens. I buzzed several Russian warships, and took photos. I turned the camera in to Intelligence when I landed. When I asked to see my photos, they said they had all been "ruined in processing". I don't believe them -- I probably had some of the best photos of Russian warships anywhere! The whole thing was a very serious international crisis and I expect my photos were marked "TOP SECRET". I never saw them... but I remember what I saw!

[@mikewysko2268]

@@spiritofattack We can only guess how far up the chain of command those photos traveled.

[@michaelbetzer1966]

1959: I first saw the MA-1 radar attack display on the last episode of "Steve Canyon". I didn't know what to make of it; I thought it some fanciful picture of the BQM-34 drone that was shot at. 1973: I was a student at Lowry AFB, CO (deceased, R.I.P.) learning about the F-4D Weapon Control Systems. When I saw the attack display on the radar trainer, I thought, " Oh, THAT'S what I saw in 1959!" I worked on the F-4E radar for about 13 years, and about 6 months on the F-5E. I have since worked on F-15 and F-16 radar, and the attack displays are all very similar, albeit the new radar systems show so much more target and weapons data. Thanks, Colonel Gordon!

[@spiritofattack]

Michael Betzer Tell me about the F-5E radar - I know nothing about it.

[@michaelbetzer1966]

AN/APQ-153 was designed by Emerson Electric. That's the same company that designed the AN/ASG-21 Defensive Fire Control for the B-52H. The F-5 radar had Search ranges of 5, 10 and 20 miles. It would lock on only in Boresight, and had no angle tracking. I was a little puzzled about this until I learned the F-5 was intended only for Day/VFR combat. It did have missile mode selected on the AN/ASG-29 Lead Computing Optical Sight System. It could the give steering to line up an AIM-9 shot. It was a much simpler system than on the F-4. I understand that an AN/APQ-159 radar set was retrofitted which had more capability. I went back to F-4s before I ever saw the system. Thanks for asking, and for your service! Master Sergeant USAF 1966-1992

[@spiritofattack]

@@michaelbetzer1966 Thanks for the very good reply - it all makes sense, and is data that I didn't know. The F-5 radar sounds a little better than the range-only radar gunsight of the F-100. Instead of just guns it can also line up IR missiles. Thank YOU for YOUR service -- keeping these planes operational!

[@maraudersr1043]

My father started his AF career as a Radar Repair tech for the F-106. He was asked to go to IBM computer school and was moved over to SAGE after completion of his training. My father loved his time at Eglin AFB and so did the family. It's good to hear a fighter pilots perspective and appreciation for the TEAM work required to Intercept and Defend our country! Thumbs up and Salute!

[@spiritofattack]

Radar Repair techs were at the bleeding edge of technology, and developed skills that nobody else understood. They had my full respect!

[@maraudersr1043]

@@spiritofattack Update: Oops, looks like dad worked on the AN/FSQ-7 Radar system, not the radar in the 106.

[@spiritofattack]

@MauraderSr. All radar techs have my respect! That was the leading edge of technology!

[@Pwj579]

First Mr. Gordon, thank you for your service to our country during the Cold War and Vietnam conflict. Second, thank you for this and your other very informative videos on what it was like to be a Fighter Pilot back in the 1960s and 70s. Very different technology which required more pilot nuance and attention vs the more computerized 4th Generation Teen fighters (F14, F15, F16, F18) and fully computer integrated sensor fusion Fifth Generation (F-22 and F-35) aircraft.

[@spiritofattack]

Thank you. I'm 88 years old now, but am keeping up with current technology and with the war in Ukraine. I can clearly imagine the effect a stealth fighter would have on non-stealth fighters! I write my stories to pass on what it was like during the Cold War -- there are fewer and fewer of us left every day, and fewer and fewer Cold War fighter pilots who are on the Web, making videos, or writing books. I give talks at our local library and at veteran reunions. My book, "The Spirit of Attack", is still for sale for $20. Bruce Gordon, 105 Broadbill Ct., Georgetown KY 40324.

[@juanperez2164]

Love your videos

[@spiritofattack]

@​Garvik89 His grandfather flew Yak-28P over the North Sea in WW II. Hazardous under the best of conditions! We sent P-39s to Russia in WW II, flying them from Alaska. Americans flew the planes to Elmendorf, at Anchorage. There, the half-trained Russian pilots got one flight in the P-39s around the traffic pattern, to get a takeoff and a landing. Their next takeoff they did not change heading, but flew a specific time when they were to see the next field (McGrath). If they didn't see the field, they would circle and look until their fuel ran out. Their next flight was to Nome, again without changing heading. From Nome they took off -- the runway pointed at the next Russian base, across the Bering Strait. They then flew across Siberia to get to the war against Germany in Europe. By the time they got to Europe, they were experienced pilots! I have no idea what the loss rate was on that long trip.

[@geodeaholicm4889]

those were brave kids in desperate times attempting such dangerous trips to defend their country.

[@tatelittell5967]

Thanks for the video! I like the new format.

[@stevefreeland9255]

So glad to see your new post; love the new backgrounds. I was never in the military, but I am a pilot (not flying now - thank you COID-19!). Really look forward to each new installment and greatly enjoy each of them. Each is a priceless record of an important but almost forgotten time. Safe safe - Stay strong!

[@noahway13]

When I saw this guy for the first time, I thought it would be more of a history lesson. Wow, I am binge watching and learning so much. Great teacher.

[@threexfromwsg]

I always wanted to know about the radar

[@robw3027]

Great video- many thanks. Also I like the song and that great picture of the F-102A. Cheers!

[@Nghilifa]

Marvellous Mr. Gordon, thank you for sharing your insights with us, may you have a blessed 2024.

[@spiritofattack]

Thank you! There isn't much information on the Web about what we really saw on our scopes in the 1960's.

[@FGCH03]

Thanks for this video sir.

[@TLTeo]

That intro was amazing :D

[@spiritofattack]

I wish I could sing, but in a bar it didn't count that my voice was terrible!

[@TLTeo]

@@spiritofattack As the saying goes, if the audience has drunk enough, you're always in tune! Regarding the F102/F106, I have a question. In many pictures it looks like they are carrying an infra-red search and track system, was it used and/or effective? How would targets detected by the IRST be displayed to the pilot?

[@spiritofattack]

Matteo Yes, the F-102 and F-106 had infrared IRST systems. The seeker was cooled by liquid nitrogen, which allowed it to search in the 3.5 micron range. This lower temperature eliminated many, but not all, false targets. Russia used alcohol cooling, which is cheaper but does not eliminate many false targets. IR does not give range, so the scan appeared as a sweeping dot across the scope. A contact was a blip in the sweep. The pilot grabbed the left stick control, took control of left-right search and used a thumb wheel for elevation. After spotlighting the target, he released the control and the computer gave a curve of pursuit attack. We could select different modes of attack, such as “IR Dominate, Radar Slaved” where the radar antenna was slaved to the IR seeker. That was good in heavy ECM because it picked out the target from all the jamming. IR was not as good as radar, but was a good backup system. See my video on “Limitations of IR”.

[@franks3509]

Just found your channel, glad I did. Great stuff.

[@colderwar]

Marvellous. You are an informative - yet cool - dude :)

[@davidtoth8975]

I'm glad you're safe and sound.

[@thesweatleaf]

Thank you Bruce. Can you talk more about the IR sensor and how it was used, ie how it showed up on the scope or through other instrumentation?

[@spiritofattack]

Our IR sensor swept horizontally, producing a dot going across the radar scope. We could make it sweep higher, lower, or take control of the seeker with the hand control in the cockpit. It searched in the infrared micron range for tuning jet fuel, but there are many other heat sources in that micron range. When it detected an IR target, it would spike, The appearance of the spike (how sharp it was) told us if it was a point target (a tailpipe) or a diffuse target (a grass fire, a burning building). We would grab the hand control and put the sensor directly on the target, and it would give an enlarged, better image of the source. By releasing the hand control while spotlighting the target, it would lock on and give a steering dot in both horizontal and vertical to guide to the target. It did not have range information, so following the dot would keep us pointed at the target, producing a "curve of pursuit" attack. We could slave our radar to the IR source so that, even against radar ECM, we could see the target on the radar and get the range. A firing bar would come up and when the radar target reached the firing bar, we were within range of the missile. Or, we could use the optical sight, so when the aircraft wings filled the reticle, we were within range. The trigger was "hot"; if we had turned on the MASTER ARM switch and selected the IR missiles, they would fire when we pulled the trigger. This was for the F-102 and F-106 in the 1960's.

[@thesweatleaf]

@@spiritofattack I cannot thank you enough for your level of depth and care in explaining such detail on the IR sensor. You built a great mental picture which I will probably have to diagram out to see if I understand this correctly. Do you have any commentary or anecdotes on using these IR systems?

[@ellyrion8173]

Love the content @Bruce Gordon! Always a fascinating watch :)

[@Selvikus]

@Bruce Gordon Back in the 60's, were you allowed to play music in the radio while flying?

[@spiritofattack]

@Siphon 1 In 1958, we used low frequency radio stations for navigation. We could home in on commercial radio stations. To identify radio stations, we listened to them. That is one reason radio stations are required to identify themselves several times an hour. Yes, on December 7, 1941 the Japanese listened to Hawaiian music as they navigated to attack Pearl Harbor! In those days we didn’t have radar control and we didn’t have VOR or TACAN. Yes, we listened to music as we navigated across the country!

[@Gavrick89]

@@spiritofattack Thank you for the interesting stories! And talking about the radio, you reminded me some memories from my childhood. My grandfather was a soviet interceptor pilot. He flew at Yak-28P at north. Once he told me, how one time he returning from patrol over north sea. He tuned radio on civilian wave. And there was a dawn, only he and his navigator over endless sea, and popular song "Life, i love you" in headphones: "Now the windows were lit, I tiredly come back from work, I love you, life, and I want you to become better!" And it was a very exciting and inspiring story ...

[@infocentrousmajac]

I love the narrative sir!! Very cool!! subscribed

[@bambam144]

holy cow, this is very interesting stuff. many thx for taking the time and explain this stuff to us sir.

[@SDsc0rch]

these are so cool :)

[@seeingeyegod]

Really interesting stuff!

[@JJCooper36]

Great stuff

[@marbleman52]

These "how to" videos are great, Bruce; I hope you can make many more. From the great comments it is obvious that you have many encouraging fans. And as I commented in another video, I love to see that you still have the "Spirit of Attack" in you..!! I was a Navy Plane Captain ( I know that I told you about that before, but the readers don't know ) , and fell in love with planes; military jets especially, and that love NEVER leaves....unlike wives & girlfriends...Ha...!! And the song was great ! I can just imagine the conversations you pilots must have had at the club over a few drinks...those would be priceless to have recorded..LOL..!! My best to you and your wife.

[@spiritofattack]

@marbleman52 I remember the problem we had with the Officers Wives Club in Alaska. The women were upset that we ate in the Club in smelly flight suits. When someone asked one of us to leave, we got up and chanted: "WHO OWNS THIS CLUB? WE OWN THIS CLUB!" and we didn't leave! Another time, we had a "dining in" party at the Army's Fort Richardson Officers Club in Alaska. We drank too much, and the party got rowdy -- we were trying some British games that our RAF Exchange Officer was teaching us. It was dammed violent, to be honest, similar to a US football game inside the building, with men knocked to the floor in hard tackles. The Army threw us out of their Club -- but we stole the big painting of General Richardson from the wall as we left! The Army was pissed. We gave back the painting, but they wouldn't let us party there again. No sense of humor!

[@Auburn03032]

@@spiritofattack I am a subscriber to your KZbin videos. I was an engine mechanic on the 106's with the 95th FIS from Dover, AFB. Loved working on that J-75 engine! I'd like to see a video on the MA-1 system, if you can. Thanks!

[@marbleman52]

@@spiritofattack Those are hilarious stories, but when you "work hard, play harder"..!! The military is like being in another world and another kind of Society and has its own lifestyle. Civilians have a hard time trying to understand that. Being a young man being responsible for piloting a very expensive jet ( and those that had Nav. Officer/ECM operator, etc...), and those of us on the ground that kept the aircraft safe and flyable, share a bond that goes with us the rest of our lives. And yes, I have a few 'fun' stories as well. I will always miss and cherish my few short years with my planes, and I imagine that you do as well.

[@spiritofattack]

@@Auburn03032 Wow - a video on the MA-1 system! At first thought, it's a huge subject for a video -- but sure worth considering... I'd probably have to compare it to the MG-10 system of the F-102. Yes, the J-75 engine was great - the thrust was so much greater than the F-102 that we said that in the F-106 there was a direct connection from the throttle to the airspeed!

[@spiritofattack]

@@marbleman52 Yes, indeed. Among my greatest regrets is that I didn't spend enough time just talking with the crewchiefs. I was always in a hurry to do something else -- talking the crews should have been higher on my priority list!

[@austinnevels7447]

Thank you for sharing your experience Mr Gordon. I’ve enjoyed the education and the stories very much. Look forward to more

[@spiritofattack]

I have had three recent interviews on KZbin. Search Aircrew Interview / Bruce Gordon

[@noyfub]

Great video. Love the song.

[@SuperCookiemonser]

Really interesting video. I'm really surprised at how intuitive this looks. I've read a lot about russian aviation and their approach was completly different. And less pilot friendly sometimes. Stay safe in these troubeling times!

[@rossmum]

Less different than you might think. The Sapfir in the later model MiG-21s is pretty intuitive in its symbology, its main limits being what you'd expect for something jammed into an intake cone - poor range, no azimuth control, virtually no elevation control, but once you figure out how to work around those it's pretty sweet. I find it easier to understand, the American symbology is a bit more abstract, IMO.

[@SuperCookiemonser]

@@rossmum It's just very crude compared to the american radar which seems more intuitive and more sophisticated. I find the late russian approach interesting where they projected the radar image onto the HUD. I've actually been planing doing videos about the stuff I read and know from simulators but I am not sure if thats "appropriate" since I am not a real pilot.

[@lindeleasley]

Very glad to have found your channel. I served in the 49th under Cols Lowe and Worrell. I worked in the Mock Up, on the MA-1 system, from 78 to 85.

[@spiritofattack]

@Da He You asked whether the F-102 had tracking with its infrared system. Yes, both the F-102 and F-106 had IR integrated with the radar system. There were multiple modes. IR DOMINANT, RADAR SEARCH you locked on with IR and your radar continued searching for other targets. IR DOMINANT, RADAR SLAVED. Very good in a heavy jamming environment, the IR stayed locked on while the radar was slaved to the IR system. As you got close to the target, you usually got "burn-through" as your radar was more powerful than the jamming at close range. You could then upgrade to a radar lock-on, which was best for radar and IR missiles because the computer would then tell the correct range for firing. The IR used the radar scope to put its display, which was a dot which spiked when it saw a target - and you had an audio tone telling you of the target. You could get an expanded look at the IR signature, which told you whether it was a point target or a diffuse target. An aircraft would be a point target, while a cloud or a brush fire on the ground would be a diffuse target. IR has no "maximum range" because it can pick up targets like cloud edges, ground targets, the Sun or the Moon. However, IR does not give an accurate range to the target - just angle and elevation - so it could not compute a lead-collision course. Radar was the best way to fire missiles. In Vietnam it could find hot spots in the jungle at night made by Viet Cong campfires. I did not fly those missions, but firing rockets or IR missiles would be very dangerous at night because you can't see the hills and estimating your range to the target would be very difficult. The F-102 was very maneuverable - much more maneuverable than the F-100. The F-102 had a wing loading of 32 pounds/sq ft, while the F-100 had 72 pounds/sq ft. and they both had the same engine. Engine response in the F-102 was better than in the F-100. The F-100 had no radar except for gun range. The F-100 could carry bombs and had guns, so the F-100 was better for ground attack. I flew both planes, and think the F-102 would beat the F-100 in a dogfight.

[@bret9741]

I wish more men from your active years would write books and make videos. They are so very important parts of our history.

[@spiritofattack]

I have had several interviews with Aircrew Interview of the UK. This is Part II of my first interview -- we split it because the entire interview was too long. This is about the F-102 an F-106. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXa3aqaPaZxpn7M

[@BoleDaPole]

Amazing technology.

[@trevordixon672]

Great to find out how it worked , great stories!

[@jinzhang8241]

Awesome video - Bruce is a national treasure, and I can spend days just listening to his stories. And what a clear and articulate explanation of radar symbology that even a layman can understand. And for those of you who want to get a glimpse of what a fighter pilot warrior mentality is - click on 8:29. This is priceless! :)

[@noahway13]

I can picture him in the good ol days back in the O-club, regaling everyone with his stories.

[@memonk11]

Nice photo! Do you remember what camera, lense, and film?

[@spiritofattack]

memonk11 It was a 90 mm lens, 135mm Kodachrome film. I think it was a Cannon camera. I broke the camera when it was under my seat and I lowered my seat on it. There was very limited room in a fighter cockpit.

[@memonk11]

@@spiritofattack Thank you so much for taking the time to reply, and the videos!

[@brealistic3542]

Love your stories !😎

[@JonisKanonis]

Fantastic video!

[@spiritofattack]

Thanks! I had noticed that there are no videos out there showing what a pilot sees on his radar scope. Articles talk about contact ranges, and occasionally show a video of the scope (we did not have that capability in the 1960's) but none show the progress of an attack. I did this video for the record -- so future generations can know what we saw and how we made an intercept...

[@JonisKanonis]

@@spiritofattack I have watched all your videos and I look forward to the next one. Best regards from Sweden!

[@spiritofattack]

@@JonisKanonis I am always interested in the Swedish aircraft and in your national politics, but I am too far away to have an informed opinion. I am open to ideas from you!

[@paulk9712]

Hi Bruce, did any Alaska based USAF interceptors ever shoot down Soviet aircraft? If there was never official acknowledgement of shoot downs, were there ever rumors that it happened? I seem to recall the Soviets shot down a number of our reconnaissance aircraft.

[@spiritofattack]

No, we never shot down any Russian aircraft. The only Russian aircraft that I know was shot down was a Russian got too close to the US fleet during the Korean War. Yes, they shot down several US aircraft. We flew lots of planes over Russia -- first B-29s, then B-47s, then the U-2s. We only backed off when they were able to shoot down our recon planes. They never had a recon plane that we couldn't get, so they never deliberately flew through US airspace -- except maybe the "Russian Bombers over Alaska" video that I posted. In 1963, two Bears flew deep into Alaska and got away with many F-102s chasing them! We concluded at the time that they were lost, and realized where they were just in time to get away from us. That was a close one! Our orders were to shoot them down only if the wreckage would fall on US soil.

[@pilotpug]

Any idea what the range would be on the older AN/APG-40 radar that was fitted to the F-89? Hard to find data on this.

[@spiritofattack]

I never used the F-89's radar myself, but it was the same vintage as the F-102 radar (MG-10) and probably had about the same contact range. The range of the F-102 radar varied with the skill of the pilot and the radar reflectivity of the target. I usually got about 12 to 15 miles contact on a fighter size target.

[@pilotpug]

@@spiritofattack wow, thanks to hear from your own personal experience!

[@aleksimakela6787]

Greetings from Finland sir! I highly appreciate your work with these videos, sometimes I almost feel like sitting in a cockpit of a "Six" thanks to your storytelling skills! Also, could you make a video about F-106's Tactical Situation Display, I'd like to know how you pilots used it in missions. Keep up the good work!

[@spiritofattack]

The TSD (Tactical Situation Display) was high tech at the time but is common now. I think much of the information is now shown on the HUD (Heads Up Display). It was a map of the ground you were flying over and showed your target, and his direction. It was very good for situational awareness and navigation. When you’re flying above layers of clouds it is nice to know if you’re over water or land and where the emergency airfields are. How high are the mountains you’re flying over? Is the target flying low down a river bed? Is there more than one enemy? Where are your friends? I don’t have good photos of an active TSD so I can’t make a good video. I am going to put my effort into making an audio book based on my Spirit of Attack book but adding extra events.

[@fim-43redeye31]

@@spiritofattack To use recent blocks of the F-16 and F/A-18 as examples, the kind of data that would be shown on the TSD is now shown on MFDs - multi-function displays. In the newer models, you can see the ground, your target, and data on the target such as elevation, speed and even aircraft type if the datalink transmitter is able to determine it using NCTR - non-cooperative target recognition. However, the HUD normally only shows your target and data such as aspect and speed, without any significant navigation data beyond direction to the selected waypoint.

[@justforever96]

Thanks for this video, I always had an interest in old radar systems and how they worked, but its hard to find good information on the topic online. I finally found a page that discussed WWII radar scopes in good detail, so its nice to move up to the 60s now. Although I didn't quite follow all of this. So the jizzle band doesn't actually follow the movement of the dish as it sweeps? You're saying the dish moves much faster? Then I don't understand the point of the band. So the field of view of the scope is actually GREATER than then angular motion of the antenna? I always thought it was less, so a target that appears to be at a small distance from the centerline of the scope will actually be 40 or more degrees off the centerline of the aircraft. Sorry, I just cant make much sense of that part.

[@spiritofattack]

You're close, but missing details. The jizzle band does move with the dish. However, the feed horn to the antenna (not the antenna itself) is spinning off center, so it spreads the signal out in a cone. If you grab the hand control, the spinning stops and you have a pencil-beam radar with which to spotlight the target. I remember the edges of the scan were 60 degrees from the centerline, either side. A very broad range. The antenna in sweep mode would stair step four times, so it would cover a larger airspace. When we went to 200 Ground Map scope, the nutating stopped and the scan became a pencil beam. Because an enemy plane far away was limited in angel up or down, we could manually detect bombers far beyond the technical limits of the normal scan if we used the ground map function. These are techniques that pilot learned with time....

[@Auburn03032]

Bruce, could you explain how the MA-1 system on the F-106 worked? I've heard that only thing the pilots really needed to do was taxi out to the active runway, sit back, and enjoy the ride!

[@spiritofattack]

@Marc Brousseau - Laughing out loud! It sure sounded like we just took off and let the MA-1 do the rest! The SAGE data link was only a part of the system - and I flew in Alaska and Korea without SAGE at all. It was the most advanced aircraft computer of its time. It started out with vacuum tubes, with a high computer failure rate -- we learned to re-start the computer in flight after computer hangs. It's the MA-1 system of the F-106 that made the Falcon missiles deadly -- the F-4 didn't have the MA-1 and couldn't fire the missiles properly. A video explaining the MA-1 is called for -- very complex -- how do I keep it simple ???

[@Auburn03032]

@@spiritofattack I just recently met a pilot who flew the AFNG 106's from Otis AFB on Cape Cod. He said the system kind of slammed you around, especially at low altitude. His aircraft avionics were not as well maintained as the active AF, so he didn't use it very much. Still, what an advanced system for early 70's! Also, I was in the 8th AF at Ubon RTAFB in early 70s - lots of F-4s, but used as bombers, rather than fighters. I think some were used in the Wild Weasel program, not sure. Talking with you brings back memories, some not so good. Take care!

[@spiritofattack]

@@Auburn03032 Yes, the F-4 made an excellent attack bomber! It could carry more bombs than a squadron of Mirages. As for the MA-1 controlling the aircraft, I very seldom used it, and never let the automatic system compete a single pass. When push comes to shove, I'll do it myself!

[@Auburn03032]

@@spiritofattack Did you ever fly with a Genie?

[@spiritofattack]

@@Auburn03032 I flew the F-102 with the Nuclear Falcon - and hated it, because it had lots of security problems but had the same probability of kill as the non-nuclear Falcon. I pulled Alert in the F-106 with the Genie, but never flew with it. I did fire a Genie with a test warhead that was a big smoke marker. The target was a drone. That Genie fires right under the cockpit, so it's right under you when the rocket motor ignites. Wow, lots of noise! It flew very straight toward the target. The aim point was just below the target so the upward shock wave would tear the wings off the target. I was afraid of being blinded by the flash -- or by the flash of somebody else's nuke. A blind pilot hasn't got a chance of survival.... They gave us a patch to wear over one eye, so we would have one good eye -- but I tried flying with the patch and it was very hard to use. If I went into combat, I wanted both eyes wide open to see the enemy -- I'd worry about the flash after launch. The only advantage over our regular Falcon missiles was that we could launch it using our optical sight, even if our Falcons had been jammed, because the Genie was unguided and could not be jammed. We might not get the range right, but at least the target would be closer to the blast than I would be!

[@barnabybones2393]

I think dinner with this guy would take 4 hours. 5, maybe 6 tops.

[@rhysgoodman7628]

But it would be the best dinner you ever have!

[@nobeltnium]

3 videos in and seems like he had alot of drinks in the club

[@Pincer88]

Can imagine that those drinks at the club were well deserved, especially when performing intercepts like that in a real combat situation with Migs and possibly SAMs on one's ass. Maybe a dumb question, but hopefully one you'll forgive me since I'm not from the US, but were F-102s and F-106s ever in combat, or were they the generation in between Korea and Vietnam?

[@spiritofattack]

@Pincer88 - The F-102 was in combat early in Vietnam, and one was lost to a MiG-21 that came in undetected. They were there mostly to defend against the IL-28 Beagle twin-engine light bomber, but I don't think the IL-28 ever tried to attack us. A couple of F-106s were in Vietnam but were hardly used at all. My opinion is that the F-106 was a high altitude air defense fighter, and the air war was at rather low altitudes. The F-106 was superior to anything at high altitudes, so the MiGs would never come up to attack us. MiGs would not do battle unless they had the tactical advantage, so they would have been foolish come up to high altitude. The F-106 would lose the advantages of its radar and IR if it came down to low altitude, where where was ground clutter, SAMs, and AAA. Vietnam was not the right war for the F-102 or F-106. I flew in Vietnam myself, in the F-100, and both the F-102 and F-106 flew far better than the F-100. I came close to combat myself flying F-106s in Korea. See my video on North Korean MiGs. BTW, what country are you from?

[@Pincer88]

@@spiritofattack Thank you kindly Sir for your reply. I'm from the Netherlands.

[@yudhistiraaldistaputramirz5925]

Basically F-106 pilot did 2 men job by himself

[@francescodepascale7188]

You may find here kzbin.info/www/bejne/qV65q6COhd2EoZY a video explaining the whole f102 system. A bit technical but maybe it will remind you good old times (and for the younger of us : they had a pretty damn data link in the 50’!!)

[@brunodavidferreira5781]

Now I know what is the 2° joystick in the Delta Dart... Have to put a Delta Dartr in DCS of corse! Ah Why exist F-102 and F-106 at the same time? F-106 was a better version of F-102?... Or nothing of this?...

[@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd]

It was just an evolution of the 102 . Our host has done a great sales job on the 106 in previous videos. Really brought it out why it deserves more of our interest

[@F22raptor46]

I like this new style of video you've made. If I were to recommend maybe you can also add some background music at low volume just for effects

[@johnevers3531]

GCI, God's Eye View.........Dolly Check.........Dolly Sweet.......Follow Dolly. Point the hounds (F106) to the target until they get a sniff (Judy), then watch em go for it. Intercepts were fun when all radars (Ground and Aircraft) were working well.

[@spiritofattack]

Yes, those terms bring back memories! CONTACT! Tally Ho! BANDITS! SPLASH! when aerial refueling: TOBOGGAN, or BREAKAWAY, BREAKAWAY, BREAKAWAY!

[@ArtietheArchon]

the F-106, great jet with a lousy missile in the AIM-4

[@spiritofattack]

The AIM-4 was NOT a lousy missile. It was designed to be fired by the MA-1 fire control system, and worked very well. The F-4 did not have the computer system, so it was used in a backup system that didn't work well. The problem was the F-4, not the missile. Robin Olds, an old gun man from WW II, bad-mouthed the AIM-4 and gave it a bad name. I flew F-100's with guns and the F-106 with AIM-4 missiles. Given the choice, I would fly with the AIM-4 (with the right computer system) rather than guns. I'd also prefer the AIM-4 over the Sidewinder or Sparrow.

[@albertgerard4639]

Killer grandpa

[@spiritofattack]

I am 88 years old now -- I am getting these things on the record before there's nobody left who remembers them!

[@brunodavidferreira5781]

🤣😂😂 I never understand why the americans Delta have 2 manches.now I know,the americans piloted the fighter and the radar antena of the fighter...and why have 2 radar scops in the dagger!??...two angle of sight?

[@spiritofattack]

Your question is not clear. Neither the F-102 nor the F-106 had two radar scopes, except for the two-seat versions, one scope in each seat. I think you are referring to the TSD (Tactical Situation Display) on the F-106 Delta Dart. The TSD was NOT a radar scope, but a large map display below the normal instrument panel. It showed your location on the map, and could show the location of an enemy aircraft if it was sent to you by SAGE data link. The location of the enemy aircraft and its relation to you gave you an idea of the attack geometry. The enemy's position given by SAGE data link could be off by several miles. You used your own radar to locate, lock onto, and attack the enemy. The TSD was also very useful when coming back to land, because it showed the runway and mountains or towers in the area which were dangerous to your flight. No, we did NOT have two radar scopes for one pilot.

[@chichotwojay740]

Precisely. The world is level.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

​@spiritofattack >>> 👍👍