Category Archives: Cold War

Hwasŏng Missile Series and Missile Carriers

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – (1960s – Present)

Hwasŏng-15 being launched during a test. Source: KCNA via The Diplomat https://i.imgur.com/eEJVew1.jpeg

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is one of the world’s lesser-known nations, but one that is periodically mentioned in Western media for diplomatic incidents with neighboring nations after testing ballistic missiles. This article attempts to shed light on Korea’s most famous, and numerous family of ballistic missiles, the Hwasŏng, in English literally “Star of Fire”, which in the Korean language (Hangŭl) indicates the planet Mars.

Creation of the DPRK Missile Program

Going back in the history of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the first rockets it had available were various artillery rocket systems from the Soviet Union, such as the BM-8, BM-13 and BM-31 ‘Katyusha’ Multiple Rocket Launchers. These systems first arrived between 1948 and 1950 in Korea and were used against UN forces during the Korean War with great results.

In the following years, several ‘Katyushas’ remained in service with the KPA, and in the early 1960s they were joined by the modern 122 mm, BM-21 ‘Grad’, and Chinese produced MLRs such as the 107 mm Type 63. Both systems were studied and reverse engineered in late 1960s, with the creation of the 122 mm BM-11 MRLs and 107 mm Type 75.

North Korean-produced 122 mm BM-11 on ZiL-151 trucks. These are the most common Korean copies of the BM-21 ‘Grad’ MLRS distinguishable for the presence of 30 tubes instead of 40 divided in two blocks of 15 tubes. Source: KCBC https://i.imgur.com/4fBuab4.jpg

Between 1968 and 1970, North Korea purchased several S-2 ‘Sopka’ coastal defense missiles from the Soviet Union, enough to equip 5 batteries. With the help of the People’s Republic of China, North Korea created the first maintenance and assembly facilities for the S-2 missiles, and newly purchased HY-1 Chinese anti-ship missiles. The deliveries of these anti-ship missiles were made both from Chinese military stocks, and kits that were assembled in Korea at the Mangyongdae Facility, to allow Korean scientists to become familiar with the systems.

North Korean S-2 ‘Sopka’ coastal defense missiles during a parade in early 1970s. Source: KCBC https://i.imgur.com/EEwPx7t.png

Later in the 1960s, the Soviet Union supplied the DPRK with heavy artillery rockets, defined by NATO as Free Rockets Over Grounds (FROGs). More precisely these were 3R9 Luna and 3R10 Luna-2 rockets in 2K6 complexes (FROG-3 and FROG-5), and 9M21 Luna-M rockets in 9K52 complexes (FROG-7). An important note is that the USSR refused to help Korea create its own missile program for political issues, and only aided Korea in building facilities to assemble anti-ship and S-75 missiles. On the other hand, China delivered many types of reverse engineered Soviet Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM), anti-ship missiles, and associated technologies to DPRK. Chinese assistance would probably have been greater, but the PRC did not possess the same systems, and level of knowledge, as the Soviet Union.

In 1972, the DPRK created its first missile plant for the production of Chinese anti-ship missiles but, for their assembly, they still needed some hi-tech components from China. These SAMs, and coastal defense anti-ship missiles, provided the Korean engineers with material to familiarize themselves with modern missile technologies, such as rocket guidance and propulsion. By 1973, North Korea had enough missiles to equip its navy with 10 Komar-class, and 8 Osa-class missile boats armed with P-15 and HY-1 missiles.

A North Korean S-75 ‘Dvina’ SAM battery (or its Chinese copy, the HQ-2). The Koreans later reached the goal of producing this system indigenously, calling it Pongae-1. Source: KCBC https://i.imgur.com/Ir2eVLP.png

 

Some sources claim that the DPRK received 24 Luna, Luna-2 and Luna-M and an equal number of 2P16 Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL) but this number has never been confirmed with certainty, in fact, another source says that the DPRK received between 27 and 63 missiles, and 9 TELs, from the Soviet Union. Some also state that the DPRK acquired between 24 and 56 9M21 Luna-Ms between 1975 and 1976, together with 6 or 8 TELs from Egypt, but these deliveries have never been confirmed.

North Korean 3R9 Luna loaded on 2P16 chassis. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/Ewcyn7h.jpg

 

 

Nomenclature
Missiles NATO TEL Complex
3R9 Luna FROG-3 2P16 2K6
3R10 Luna-2 FROG-5 2K6
9M21 Luna-M FROG-7 9K52

The first copies of these missiles appeared in the following years, being renamed Hwasŏng.

The code Hwasŏng-1 being uncertain to which missile it refers to, but all sources seems to agree that it is the Korean designation of the indigenous production of the 2K6 Luna, while Hwasŏng-3 is the Korean designation of the indigenous production of the 9K52 Luna-M missiles.

A Soviet-produced 9P113 TEL equipped with 9M21 Luna-M in Korean service in a frame of a propaganda video. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/Df5XEFd.jpeg

The two missiles had a range of 45 and 65 km (28 and 40 miles), and carried a High-Explosive warhead of about 400 kg (881 lb). The Soviet models could be equipped with small nuclear warheads, but the Koreans, at that time, did not have miniaturized nuclear weapons, as the first tests on a nuclear reactor were only carried out in 1958. It is, however, very likely that the DPRK developed chemical warheads for such missiles.

Data on the missiles designated Hwasŏng-2 and Hwasŏng-4 are unknown, but they never reached mass production.

Some sources speculate that the designation Hwasŏng-2 was given to the Korean copy of the S-75 surface-to-air missile, a hypothesis rejected thanks to Korea itself, that calls the S-75 copy Pongae-1. The Hwasŏng-4 may have been given by the Koreans to the joint project of a Short-Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM), between DPRK and People’s Republic of China, referred by the Chinese sources to Dōngfēng-61 (DF-61). This project was born at the end of the 1970s at the behest of Kim Il-sung himself, who in April 1975, traveled to Beijing where Oh Jin-u, North Korean defense minister, asked the People’s Republic of China to purchase their SRBM missiles.

The DF-61 program, born in late 1976 to develop a missile with a range of 600 km (372 miles) and possess a warhead of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), had a very short life due to the fact that in 1978 its main Chinese supporter, Chen Xilian was limited in his powers and eventually purged for political reasons in 1980. The failure of the DF-61, however, was not a defeat for the DPRK technicians, as thanks to the exchange of knowledge with the Chinese, had greatly increased their knowledge of missile design. In these years, the DPRK gradually diminished their imports of anti-ship missile technology from China, in favor of indigenously produced equipment.

The Hwasŏng-5 – The First Korean SRBM

Due to the deterioration of relations with Moscow, and the unsuccessful joint project with China, the DPRK, as soon as the DF-61 project was closed, decided to turn to another country. A nation that possessed Soviet-made missiles and that, at the same time, was in debt to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: the Arab Republic of Egypt.

International relations between Korea and Egypt have always been very close from the mid 1950s. In early 1973, after political issues, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat expatriated all the Soviet advisors, pilots and instructors from its country. It was a bad idea, considering that the Arab nation was preparing to launch an attack on Israel, and its military was dependent on Soviet equipment. In March 1973, a delegation from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea led by Kang Ryang-uk, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPRK, visited Egypt, and the Egyptians asked for Korean technical assistance with their missile program.

In June 1973, 20 MiG-21 pilots and 19 ground crew members from the Korean People’s Air Force were sent to Egypt to train the Egyptian pilots. When the Yom Kippur War broke out on 6th October 1973, the DPRK’s pilots (joined by others that arrived later) supported Egyptian troops against the Israeli Defense Force.

This was only the last of a series of diplomatic and military trades between the Arab country and the small Asian country; and it was a good excuse to ask a favor to Egypt, with Kim Il-sung requesting Soviet-produced SRBMs from Egypt. Some sources claim that the missiles were received in 1976 while other claims they were received by Korea in 1981. Despite the discordant sources, Egyptian president Sadat agreed to sell to the DPRK SCUD-B missiles received from the Soviet Union in the early 1970s for use against Israel. It seems that the agreement was not signed until 1981.

A Soviet SRBM R-17E Elbrus during training in the Soviet Union. The Transporter Erector Launcher is a MAZ-543P. Source: topwar.ru https://i.imgur.com/ENUceGk.jpg

The Short-Range Ballistic Missiles received from Egypt were the R-17E ‘Elbrus’ (also known as 8K14E, or with the NATO name SS-1C SCUD-B). These were purchased together with a Soviet-made TEL, a MAZ-543P. A missile production factory, Factory 125 in P’yŏngyang, the Research and Development Institute in Sanum-dong, and the Musudan-ri Launch Facility were also set up in the DPRK at that time with the help of Soviet Union, which by the early 1980s changed had changed their policy about helping Korea in its missile program.

It should be noted, however, that a Korean defector claimed that in 1972, 20 SCUD-Bs were provided by the Soviet Union in exchange for the secret material found aboard the USS Pueblo in 1968, which was provided by the DPRK to the USSR. This claim however has never been confirmed, and in fact, in the 1970s and early 1980s, no SCUD-B tests were reported, and it is very likely that his information was a misidentification or totally false.

The R-17E had a slow process of reverse engineering which led DPRK engineers to develop a slightly modified domestic version, which was christened Hwasŏng-5, the first SRBM produced by DPRK. To finance the reverse engineering program, funds were allocated from Islamic Republic of Iran. Prime Minister Mir-Hosein Musavi and Defense Minister Colonel Mohammad Salimi in October 1983, signed an agreement with North Korea to finance the Korean program in exchange for receiving missiles when the program concluded.

The warheads of Hwasŏng-5 or -6 presented to Kim Jong-il. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/TWd63kC.jpeg

In 1984, the first Korean copies of the R-17E were produced and the first test launch took place in April of the same year with some others occurring for the rest of the year, with at least two failures. It seems that all the R-17E in Korean arsenals were dismantled and studied to copy their components, even if some statements hypothesize that some missiles tested in 1984 were R-17Es, and were launched to confuse the analysts on the real results of the missile program. Incredibly, the first official appearance of the Hwasŏng-5 was on 7th April 2007 and a year after one camouflaged Hwasŏng-5 was shown to a Myanmar delegation.

Camouflaged Hwasŏng-5 exposed in a DPRK’s underground missile facility to a Myanmar delegation in 2008. Source: The Armed Forces of North Korea https://i.imgur.com/YAalhbw.jpg

The first version, however, saw a very limited pilot production and was replaced by a new version of the Hwasŏng-5 in 1985, when the full scale production also started.

This version had a length of about 12 meters (39 feet), a diameter of about 0.8 meters (2.6 feet) and a range of 330-340 km or 205-211 miles (compared to 300 km -186 miles – of the R-17E) and a 1,000 kg warhead that could be standard High Explosive, Cluster, Chemical and probably even Biological. The Hwasŏng-5 was produced until 1989 when it was replaced by the Hwasŏng-6. The number of Hwasŏng-5s produced is unknown.

A Hwasŏng-5 night launch. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/q6V1Cxt.jpeg

The Hwasŏng-6 was developed on the basis of the Hwasŏng-5 starting in 1987, when Korean engineers began working on the missile guidance system to reduce the Circular Error Probable (CEP), the maximum distance the missile could miss the target.

According to North Korean sources, the CEP of the Hwasŏng-6 was decreased from several hundred meters of the Hwasŏng-5 to 50 meters (164 feet). The increased accuracy of the missile allowed the warhead to be decreased to 750 kg (1,653 lb), and increased to size of the rocket’s fuel tanks which brought the estimated total range to 500-700 km (310-434 miles).

Another image of night launch of a Hwasŏng-5. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/LUWdpnp.jpeg

The first test of the Hwasŏng-6 took place in 1988, immediately after which the assembly lines were modified, and mass production began in 1989. According to some Western estimates, in 1999, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was estimated to have produced 600 to 1,000 Hwasŏng-6, of which 300 to 500 had been exported, and 300 to 500 were in service with the Korean People’s Army Strategic Rocket Force, and 25 were used in tests.

The Hwasŏng-5 and Hwasŏng-6 enabled the DPRK to work on its missile program by providing a good deal of knowledge, and laying the foundation for the Korean People’s Army to become independent of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China in the development of Ballistic Missiles.

1990s Development: New Leader, New Threats

The new decade brought a number of changes to the DPRK: first, though not the most important, the collapse of the Soviet Union, followed a few years later by the death of Kim Il-sung. On 8th July 1994 North Korea’s Great Leader Kim Il-sung died suddenly from a heart attack leaving his first-born son Kim Jong-il, the leader of the nation which, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, had been almost completely isolated. The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the cessation of the supply of wheat and other edibles to Korea drastically decreasing the food supply in the country, which was also due to several crop damage recorded in the late 80s and early 90s. The famine occurred between 1994 to 1998 and is known in Korea as the Arduous March which caused an estimated number of 240,000 to 3,5 millions of deaths from starvation or hunger-related illnesses. Kim Jong-il instead of investing funds in agricultural growth to get out of famine, launched the Songun policy, a sort of “Military-First” policy aimed at improving North Korean military capabilities at the expense of the population.

The “Dear” Leader Kim Jong-il with its bodyguards at the P’yŏngyang International Airport await the Chinese president Yang Shangkun in April 1992. Source: cbsnews.com https://i.imgur.com/egAbEEW.jpg

This increased Western fears of Kim Jong-il, who was seen as an unscrupulous dictator and thus capable of starting a war against South Korea. South Korean and US analysts were already predicting that he was a much more dangerous character than his father because of a number of bombings against South Korea that had occurred in previous years, under his initiative. These included the Rangoon Bombing of 9th October 1983, an attempt to kill the South Korean president Chun Doo-hwan, and the Korean Air Flight 858 Bombing on 29th November 1987 to intimidate travelers to the South Korean Olympic Games.

The new decade did not bring only bad news to Korea, however. The destabilization of the Soviet Union in 1989 allowed Korea to bring some Soviet scientists closer to its cause on the pretext of lack of work, if the Cold War ended. In April 1991 Korean agents contacted Soviet solid-state physicist Anatoliy Rubtsov in Beijing during a meeting. They offered to Rubtsov to recruit Soviet physicists and scientists for them in the Soviet Union, in exchange for compensation from the North Korean embassy in Moscow. The proposal was attractive, and it was clear that the Soviet Union would not last long, and so Rubtsov accepted.

Dr. Rubtsov began recruiting Soviet strategic weapons specialists at the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau in Miass in February 1992. His offers to work in Korea were quite interesting, with monthly salaries ranging from $1,500 to $4,000 to work on North Korean missile and nuclear programs; however, the program included assistance to other unknown nations, likely Iran and Syria.

The total number of Russian scientists that were recruited by Dr. Rubtsov is unknown, some analysts quote the number to be about 60 scientists, but according to Russian and Western sources, at least 64 were blocked in Russian airports before their departure to Korea.

In January 1994, a Japanese newspaper claimed,quoting Russian reports, that the Russian missile specialists in DPRK were 17, including Dr. Rubtsov, plus another 9 nuclear scientists. Along with these scientists, there may have been many others since upon arrival in Korea, some not only received Korean citizenship but also changed their names.

In the late 1980s, the DPRK began development of a new missile that was essentially a scaled-up version of the earlier Hwasŏng-5 and 6: the Hwasŏng-7, also known by its unofficial Western nickname of Nodong-1 ,or Rodong-1 depends which type of translation is used.

The Hwasŏng-7 was first uncovered by the West in May 1990 at the Musudan-ri Test Launch Facility, when it was still under development and later tested 1992.

The first version of the Hwasŏng-7, with single conical nose and interesting camouflage loaded on its TEL, ready to be tested. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/tPhC2Qa.jpg

With a length of about 18 meters (59 feet), a diameter of 1.35 meters (4.1 feet), and a speed of mach 10 (12.348 km/h – 7,672 miles per hour). This new missile is a step forward compared to previous DPRK designs. There are two versions of the Hwasŏng-7: a version with a standard conical nose with a 1,000 kg warhead, and a range estimated at around 1,000 km (621 miles), and a version with a double conical nose that decreases the warhead to about 700 kg (1543 lb), but increases its range to an estimated maximum of 1,500 km (932 miles).

A big step forward for the DPRK, was that it could now threaten Japan with a missile capable of carrying a small atomic warhead.

The second version of the Hwasŏng-7, with double conical nose during a parade in Kim Il-sung Square in P’yŏngyang. Source: gladiusds.com https://i.imgur.com/bP2Q4Ah.jpg

Due to the restricted airspace of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, not many Hwasŏng-7 tests have ever been reported. However, we can take as an example the Islamic Republic of Iran which has purchased the Hwasŏng-7, and has produced several indigenous variants called Shahab-3 which, although possessing some differences with the original missiles. These have a range of 1,280 km (795 miles) for the 1,000 kg warhead version and 1,930 km (1,199 miles) with the lighter warhead. According to some estimates, the KPA-SF have about 300 Hwasŏng-7 but have fewer than 50 TELs to transport and launch them.

The Iranian copy of the Hwasŏng-7, the Shahab-3 during testing in Iran. Source: wikipedia.org https://i.imgur.com/1jBQ26b.jpg

Kim Jong-il did not slow down the missile development started by his father, and under his leadership was presented a new missile designed Hwasŏng-8 appears to be a modified Hwasŏng-6 variant with a 500 kg (1,102 lb) warhead and a length increased to 12.4 meters (40.6 feet) allowing the missile to reach a maximum range of 700 km (1,543 miles).

The Hwasŏng-8 missile before 2010. Source: pinterest.com https://i.imgur.com/kxCK5aE.jpg

Despite the characteristics suitable to hit targets in South Korea, it seems that this missile has never been used by the KPA but only by Syria that tested it in September 2000. For unknown reasons, the Hwasŏng-8 reappeared in 2021, but it seems that the name was simply given to another missile based on the first stage of the Hwasŏng-14. The new Hwasŏng-8 is claimed to be the first North Korean Hypersonic Medium-Range Ballistic Missile with Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), becoming a dangerous threat for South Korea because of its speed and ability to change trajectory, which results in greater difficulty of being intercepted by anti-ballistic missile.

New Hwasŏng-8 test launch occurred on 14th September 2021. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/sqMJEwu.jpg

The Hwasŏng-9 (US Department of Defence – DoD designation KN-04) first appeared in 1994, but remained relatively unknown in the west West until 2016. This is the last missile in the Hwasŏng series to have ties to the Soviet R-17E.

The diameter has increased to just over a meter while the length is about 12.8 meters (42 feet).

Four Hwasŏng-9 simultaneously launched by their TELs on March 6, 2017. Source: militarywatchmagazine.com

The structure appears to be made of an aluminum alloy, combining the Korean copy of the Isayev RD-21 engine with a 500 kg warhead that can be launched against a target about 1,000 km away, making it a Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM). Unfortunately, estimates of how many Hwasŏng-9 missiles the Korean People’s Army – Air and Anti-Air Force (KPA-AF) has in service are unknown, some estimates refer to as few as 15 while others exaggerate that number to as many as 100.

 

Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un watching four successfully launched Hwasŏng-9 from a high quarter some kilometers away. Source: KCNA via twitter.com @KPA_bot

In 1999 the Korean People’s Army’s Ground Force Artillery Commands subordinate to the KPA-AF were reorganized into the new Korean People’s Army – Strategic Rocket Force (KPA-SRF).

The beginning of the new century – The Beginning of a New Missile Era for DPRK

First appearing in 2010, the first Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) to enter service was the Hwasŏng-10, which has received several unofficial nicknames including: Nodong-2, Taepodong-X, BM-25 and Musudan. In appearance the missile is really similar to the Soviet-designed R-27 ‘Zyb’ Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM).

Soviet R-27 ‘Zyb’ exhibited at the Peresvet museum, Moscow Oblast. Source: Stanislav Kozlovskij https://i.imgur.com/X6EgXvq.jpg

Despite its late appearance, it is certain that its development began in the mid-1990s, and is thanks to the knowledge brought to the country by the Russian scientists led by Dr. Rubtsov, now member of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Science Academy.The first presentation to Kim Jong-il took place in 2004, but was kept secret. Also the absence of missile tests for such a long time made many believe that this missile was a fake created to confuse Western secret agencies. The missile can be equipped with a conventional warhead of about 1,000 kg or with a nuclear warhead with an estimated power between 80 and 200 kilotons.

A Hwasŏng-10 being launched by its TELs with protections to cover the wheels from the heat generated by the launch. Source: KCNA https://i.imgur.com/vyjHEsT.jpg

Obviously, the missile received some modifications to better suit Korean requirements.

The TEL designated to carry this missile could carry 20 tons of cargo, while the R-27 weighed only 14 tons, and so it was decided to enlarge the missile, bringing it from 8.8 meters (28.8 feet), to about 11 meters (36 feet) in length, thus increasing the previous range of about 600 km (372 miles) to 2,400 km (1,491 miles). Another big difference seems to be the fuel supply of this missile, which appears to be a hypergolic mixture of Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine (UDMH) as fuel and Nitrogen TetrOxide (NTO) as oxidizer.

As for the UDMH, it was a step forward since previous Korean missiles used a Soviet version of the Tonka German-designed rocket propellant, a mixture of Nitric Acid and Kerosene also known as TM-185. As for the Oxidizer, it is unknown which was used, the original R-27 used AK-27P Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) and was very similar to the one used on the R-17 Elbrus missiles. This would have led the DPRK to not have to modify its chemical plants to produce this oxidizer, but later this hypothesis was denied.

The DPRK used a new oxidizer on the upgraded version of the Soviet R-27U missile, namely N2O4 which gave the new version a range of 3,000 km (1,864 miles).

It is true that N2O4 is more refined and powerful, and would increase the range of the missile, but it is also more difficult to handle because it is more volatile and toxic than the already extremely dangerous AK-27P IRFNA and in fact is rarely used as oxidizer for ground ballistic missiles. NTO also has a narrow range of temperatures for the liquid form, forcing the user to periodically make environmental controls.

Despite these issues, Western analysts and technicians have stated that NTO is the best match for the flight path of the Hwasŏng-10 in the June 2016 ballistic test. Despite the switch to such an oxidizer, the missile has a range of “only” 3,000 km and is unable, for example, to reach new strategic targets such as the Island of Guam, and so while it is a big step in DPRK missile development, it does not amplify its offensive capabilities.

The Hwasŏng-10 during a parade. Interestingly the missiles are slightly elevated on their launch platforms. Source: KCBC https://i.imgur.com/8wMOiut.jpg

According to Korean sources, a version of the missile was tested with solid fuel in 2016; it would be a Korean version of the Julang-1 SLBM. The use of solid fuel would increase the missile’s range to 3,500 km (2,174 miles). The Hwasŏng-10 was spotted rarely in parades and only a few test launch were made, this suggests that the Koreans had found serious problems during its testing and preferred to abandon the project when newer missiles were completed.

In the first decade of the new millennium, the DPRK continued to improve its missile program, such that after the Hwasŏng-10, the next ballistic missiles are powered by solid fuel. This has led to a substantial modification of chemical plants and fuel production, in fact, producing liquid fuels is cheaper, easier and less dangerous. This modification will certainly cost a lot to the DPRK, but it has brought a series of unprecedented innovations.

First of all, the solid fuels are more energy dense than liquid fuels guaranteeing to missile of the same size and weight to possess superior range than it were to it be using liquid fuel. They also do not need a lengthy fueling process before the launch, which makes the TEL and the missile very vulnerable to enemy attacks. Liquid fuels are more volatile and could cause catastrophic explosions in the event of an accident To avoid this, the missiles were fueled immediately before launch from specialized tanker trucks. In the case of short-range ballistic missiles, this operation can take a short time, less than an hour, but with medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, this operation can take much longer. This period of time when the TEL and the missile are stationary in the launch zone can be easily detected by enemy spy satellites, and South Korea or the United States may then decide to launch preemptive strikes to prevent its launch.

With solid-fueled missiles, the fueling phase is eliminated, dramatically decreasing the time to battery and launch the missile. At the same time, the missile does not need specialized vehicles in its vicinity, this reduces the logistics and total cost for Korea, and the risk of being intercepted by spy satellites.

The earliest example of a North Korean solid-fuel missile is the Hwasŏng-11 tactical ballistic missile ,US DoD designation KN-02, a copy of the Soviet 9K79M ‘Tochka’. Its unofficial western nickname is ‘Toksa’ (Eng: Viper). First appearing in 2004, and with still debated origins, some sources speculate that the Hwasŏng-11 may be reverse engineered from Soviet missiles purchased in the 1990s from Syria, while other sources do not exclude the possibility that the missiles were purchased from Russia itself, perhaps even with the signing of a contract for Russian development support in the late 1990s or early 2000s.

The debate becomes even more complex when considering that the South Korean Media reports the first test of the Hwasŏng-11, which was unsuccessfully tested in 2004, was based on a Soviet 9K79-1 ‘Tochka-U’ model missile that Syria did not yet possess at that time.

This claim by the South Korean media cannot be confirmed and most importantly, the missile externally is much more similar to the 9K79M rather than the 9K79-1.

The Hwasŏng-11 on parade in late 2000s. The missiles were slightly erected on their launch platforms to be visible to the folks, normally they were stored inside with truck tops closed. Source: militarywatchmagazine.com https://i.imgur.com/tzHsxYv.png

As Israeli military sources stated in 1989, Syria and the DPRK cooperated in developing Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSMs). Thanks to this agreement, Korean engineers were able to study other solid-fuel missiles, such as the 4K44 ‘Redut’, P-20 ‘Rubezh-A’, and also the Tupolev Tu-143 ‘Reys’ Unmanned Reconnaissance Aircraft with solid-fuel engines, whichSyria delivered in exchange for Korean help. In 1994, the missiles were exported to Korea which began reverse engineering them.

The Hwasŏng-11 is a small missile compared to the others of the Hwasŏng series. With 6.4 meters (21 feet) long and 0.65 meters (2.1 feet) in diameter, it has a shorter range than previous missiles, reaching about 220 km (136 miles) but it has a CEP reduced to less than 100 meters (328 feet). With a payload capacity of 485 kg (1,069 lb), quite exceptional for a 2 tons missile, its warhead can be a single HE, HE submunition, thermonuclear, chemical, and probably biological. This missile is considered by the KPA-SRF as an emergency missile, capable of being launched in a short time, and thanks to its dimensions, it is easily concealable. It must be launched as close as possible from the Demilitarized Zone without being spotted, due to its short range.

Despite its reduced dimensions, this missile is considered to be a great threat from Democratic Republic of Korea missile experts. Analysts have hypothesized, that given the nuclear weapons progress of the DPRK, it could be armed with a reduced nuclear warhead of 100 kilotons, therefore being able to hit Seoul from P’yŏngyang. The big problem is that such missiles, and their TELs, are very difficult to keep under observation due to their small size and can therefore, in case of conflict, be even more dangerous than the Hwasŏng behemoths that are easier to identify and keep an eye on. The reduced dimensions also translate in cheaper production and maintenance costs,even for the TELs, meaning that North Korea could increase its arsenal of Hwasŏng-11s and launch them in salvos against South Korea as first strike weapons to saturate anti-missile defenses before the arrival of more powerful ballistic missiles.

Its maximum speed is estimated to be around mach 5 (6.174 km/h – 3,836 miles per hour), being able to reach Seoul from P’yŏngyang in only one minute and forty seconds.

Its speed is not its biggest advantage, in fact, the missile has a trajectory similar to MRLs and is difficult to intercept and counter by South Korean missile countermeasures.

Despite some speculations, the first successful test took place in 2005 and mass production likely started the following year. According to some ROKA estimates, the KPA-SRF has 100 Hwasŏng-11 missiles in active service and 30 TELs to launch them. Also according to South Korean estimates, TEL commissioning operations are around 16 minutes with 2 minutes to launch the missile and another 20 minutes to reload the TEL increasing the threat along the southern half of the peninsula.

2010s – New Leader, New Program

In the decade that saw the death of the second member of the Kim dynasty, there were developments unexpected by a nation like Korea. Kim Jong-il died from a heart attack on 17th December 2011 leaving the country in the hands of his third son, Kim Jong-un.

The money gained by illicit activities of the DPRK, such as counterfeiting foreign currency, drug trade, and other traffic allowed the new leader, Kim Jong-un to invest billions in the development of new ICBMs.

North Korea new leader Kim Jong-un inspect a Hwasŏng-12 missile on its TEL shortly before the missile test in May 2014. Source: brookings.edu https://i.imgur.com/yzjEdQ0.jpg

North Korea new leader Kim Jong-un inspect a Hwasŏng-12 missile on its TEL shortly before the missile test in May 2014. Source: brookings.edu https://i.imgur.com/yzjEdQ0.jpg

Soviet UR-100K InterContinental Ballistic Missile. Source: b14643.de https://i.imgur.com/euFdOl1.jpg

Going in numerical order, the Hwasŏng-12 (US DoD designation KN-17) was first spotted on 2014, some sources suspect it is a Korean copy of the Soviet two-stage liquid fuel Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile UR-100.

The new Korean missile lies somewhere between an Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile and an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), and has a diameter of about 1.5 meters (4.92 feet), and a height of 16 meters (52.5 feet). The propulsion of the first stage is about 100 tons of thrust, provided by 4 auxiliary engines, and an engine of 85 tons of thrust. This being the Paekdusan-1B (or Baekdusan-1B depending which type of translation is used), the Korean name of which seems to be an engine derived from the Glushko RD-250, used on some Soviet ICBMs. Initially, it was not clear how the Koreans had the opportunity to study such an engine, at first it was assumed that they had the support of Russian or Ukrainian engineers after the fall of the Soviet Union, and maybe even some samples of the engine. It is more plausible that Korea came into possession of the official blueprints, stolen from the Yuzhonoye Design Office in Ukraine. In fact, in May 2012 two North Korean citizens were arrested in Ukraine on charges of stealing confidential documents from that office. Due to the possibility of this missile hitting Guam island, many western sources nicknamed it “The Guam Killer”.

Launching the Hwasŏng-12 near P’yŏngyang on 29th August 2017. Source: thediplomat.com https://i.imgur.com/585X6H3.jpg

It seems however that the Korean variant is equipped with only one nozzle instead of the two of the original model, suggesting that the Korean variant actually incorporates features of the RD-250 engine, and the copy of the Soviet 4D10 engine, used on the Hwasŏng-10.

It has an estimated range of 3,700 km (2,299 miles) with a 650 kg (1,433 lbs) warhead, 4,500 km (2,796 miles) with a 500 kg (1,102 lbs) warhead, up to a maximum of 6,000 km (3,728 miles) with a lower weight warhead (to be classified as an ICBM it must reach 5,500 km – 3,417 miles thus double identification). Korean sources have presented a nuclear warhead for such a missile that, according to western analysts, could have a power of 1 megaton.

Also a great introduction is the Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle (MaRV) used to change the trajectory of the warhead in flight when detached from the last stage of the missile. This, driven by a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), dramatically decreases CEP, and also makes the warhead more difficult for adversary radar detectors to intercept.

According to some estimates, the warhead has a speed, during descent, from 15 to 24 Mach (18,375 km/h – 11,509 mph to 29,400 km/h – 18,414 mph).The missile entered service and quickly replaced the Hwasŏng-10 which was plagued by 4D10s engine reliability issues.

Little is known about this missile’s service history apart from that, on 1st January 2023 the Korean leader Kim Jong-un visited the Thaesong Machine Factory (also known as the Jamjin missile factory), located on the western edge of P’yŏngyang. In the images published by the Korean Propaganda Ministry, there are at least 26 Hwasŏng-12 awaiting for final assembly. This meant that the missile is in service and is currently in production.

Images released by DPRK’s Propaganda Ministry on 1st January 2023 showing the North Korean leader accompanied (in second photo) by his daughter Kim Ju-ae inspecting the production lines of Hwasŏng-12 missiles. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/buu8Wvh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/17GLxwE.jpg Images released by DPRK’s Propaganda Ministry on 1st January 2023 showing the North Korean leader accompanied (in second photo) by his daughter Kim Ju-ae inspecting the production lines of Hwasŏng-12 missiles. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/buu8Wvh.jpg

In 2011, the People’s Republic of China supplied the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with 8, some sources mention 6, WS51200, super heavy duty trucks. Almost immediately, the UN accused China of militarily supporting the DPRK by violating international embargoes, but China argued that these vehicles were for timber harvesting.

In spite of this defense, the West looked with suspicion at this transaction, expecting something very big in the coming years in the Korean missile program.

The long-awaited moment for analysts came in April 2012, when at the Kim Il-sung 100th Birth Anniversary parade, the mockup of the Hwasŏng-13 (US DoD designation KN-08) three-stage liquid-fuel ICBM was first spotted in 2008.

The Hwasŏng-13 or NK-08 on parade in Kim Il-sung Square in April 2012. The TEL is a WS51200 super heavy duty truck converted by DPRK’s factories into a missile transporter. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/xM0inrm.jpeg

The Hwasŏng-13 or NK-08 on parade in Kim Il-sung Square in April 2012. The TEL is a WS51200 super heavy duty truck converted by DPRK’s factories into a missile transporter. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/xM0inrm.jpeg

In 2012, it was labeled as part of the disinformation campaign to misdirect Western analysts.

It was later discovered that in fact, the design of this massive three stage missile was slowed down by the problem of the engines being nothing more than two 4D10 engines produced under license and coupled together. In addition to the suspicion of Chinese trucks, the West expected a missile of this size after an engine test occurred at the Sohae Satellite Launching Ground in September 2016.

This system gave many problems as it did on the Hwasŏng-10. It seems that the Koreans have decided to set aside the twin 4D10s in favor of the derivative of the RD-250 engine that generates less power, and decreases the range, but gives less problems in terms of reliability. This missile in the Korean terminology has not changed its name, but has become for the US DoD designation KN-08 Mod. 2 or KN-14. According to estimates, the first model of Hwasŏng-13 with twin engine 4D10s would have a maximum range of 11,500 km (7,145 miles) while the second two stage model has a range of 10,000 km (6,213 miles), placing it under the category of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. These are the first Korean ICBMs, and the first Korean missiles capable of threatening the east coast of North America, thus being able to reach far inland cities, like Chicago and Toronto. According to analysts,the range was not wide enough to hit Washington DC with a nuclear warhead presented in March 2016, estimated at 500-700 kg (1,102 – 1,543 lbs) although specifications were never provided by the Koreans.

Kim Jong-un in front of some Hwasŏng-13 warheads in a Korean bunker. On the wall is the motto ‘Advocating and observing the line of Songun with weapons productivity’. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/jCIhJ43.jpeg

According to the estimates of Western analysts on the first model, the first stage of the missile (which is the same as the Hwasŏng-12) would have dimensions of 17 meters (55.7 feet), the second about 2 meters (6.56 feet) while the third would have a total size of 1.25 meters (4.10 feet) for a total height of about 20 meters (65.6 feet) while the second model with the RD-250 engine, with only two stages would be shorter reaching a total height of about 16 meters (52.5 feet).

Two-stages Hwasŏng-13s (KN-14) on parade on their new WS51200. Source: prokorea.ru https://i.imgur.com/LZyUnJS.jpg

The Hwasŏng-14 (US DoD designation KN-20) first shown in 2017, has a diameter of 1.7 meters (5.5 feet) and a length of about 19 meters (62.3 feet).With its two stages, it is capable of reaching a range of 10,000 km thus able to hit the east coast of the United States. This missile was developed mostly as a testbed to develop more powerful ICBMs that will later be seen in service with the KPA-SRF. Despite its purpose, it can be armed with a 750 kg nuclear warhead with a power of 1.44 megatons, the same warhead that was tested on 3rd September 2017 during the sixth Korean nuclear test.

The Hwasŏng-14 during the erection on its TE. Source: tg24.sky.it https://i.imgur.com/pXKDLjF.jpg

The two-stage Hwasŏng-15 (US DoD designation KN-22) was, up until 2020, the largest ICBM in the world, with a diameter of more than 2 meters (6.56 feet), and an overall length of about 24 meters (78 feet). It surpasses the Russian RS-24 and the Chinese DF-41 and is capable of carrying a warhead of 1,000 kg therefore, able to carry a warhead of 1.44 megatons as the Hwasŏng-14, or more likely Multiple Re-entry Vehicles (MRV)and several decoys at a range of 13,000 km (8,077 miles), and at a maximum apogee of 4,500 km (2,796 miles).

Other hypotheses are that the missile can be equipped with Multiple Independently-targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) that are nuclear (or biological) submunitions and guided by GNSS on to multiple targets. This would allow, for example, to hit more cities on the east coast of the United States, or the capitals of nations in Europe, capable of threatening the most prominent world powers.

The Hwasŏng-15 showed off to the Great Leader. Source: bbc.com https://i.imgur.com/kc6bmEJ.jpg

The first stage of the Hwasŏng-15 has a two-chambered main engine developed by the RD-250 powered by a turbopump to increase thrust at takeoff that missile experts and analysts say increases thrust by 170 percent over the Hwasŏng-14.

The second stage, it is assumed, will be powered by two smaller engines developed in DPRK. Some estimations speculate that the DPRK is in possession of about 40 Hwasŏng-15s thus capable of seriously endangering the many European nations and the United States.

2020s -The Best was not Enough for Kim Jong-un

For Kim Jong-un, the Hwasŏng-15 was not enough, and on 10th October 2020 for the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Workers’ Party of Korea parade, he presented to the world the Hwasŏng-17 (US DoD designation KN-27). Until 24th March 2022, this missile was known in Western nations with the name of Hwasŏng-16. This is because the real name was not revealed by the Koreans until the first launch test took place on that date. Previously, analysts, news outlets, and other enthusiasts fans had named it Hwasŏng-16 continuing the chronological numeration.

This two-stage, liquid-fueled ICBM with a length of 24 to 26 meters (78 to 85 feet) and a diameter of just under 3 meters (9.84 feet) is capable of launching a 2,000 to 3,500 kilogram warhead (2.2 ton to 3.3 ton) at a range, according to some experts, of 13,000 kilometers (8,077 miles).

The Hwasŏng-17 during elevation in the P’yŏngyang International Airport. 24th March 2022. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/Y2gKXum.jpg

Its warhead is supposed to be a series of MRVs or MIRVs, with decoys, representing a threat to nations with anti-ballistic missile programs,such as the United States. Some analysts surmised that such ICBM will retain the same range as the previous Hwasŏng-15, which is enough to hit almost any target on the globe. Its increased size allows it to carry warheads of greater weight, making it significantly more destructive than the previous missile.

Supposedly, the warhead could be: a single one-megaton one or several submunitions of several tens,or hundreds, of kilotons each. To give an idea of the destructive power of such devices, the US atomic bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a power between 15 and 30 kilotons each.In both cases the missile was probably equipped with some decoys to deceive the tracking systems for Anti-Ballistic Missiles.

Because of the missile’s huge diameter, it has also been speculated that the missile’s first stage (approximately 17.5 m – 57.4 feet in length) could accommodate four RD-250 engines, for a power output never before developed for a Korean ICBM. Quoting US and South Korean sources, the Hwasŏng-17 is powered by a mixture of nitrogen tetroxide and Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine.

While the Hwasŏng-17 seemed to be the apotheosis of North Korean missile power, during the parade for the 75th Anniversary of the founding of the Korean People’s Army on 8th February 2023, the new Hwasŏng-18 was presented to the crowds. The new three stage solid-fuel ICBM has an estimated length of 25 meters (82 feet) and an estimated payload of 1,5 tonnes, and an increased range of 15,000 km (9,320 miles).

The official presentation of the Hwasŏng-18 on 8th February 2023. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/zqWDeIS.jpg

The official presentation of the Hwasŏng-18 on 8th February 2023. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/zqWDeIS.jpg

The Hwasŏng-18 during launch test on 13th April 2023. Source: KCBC https://i.imgur.com/jURIzuB.jpg

Last but Probably not Latest

On 2nd April 2024 the North Korean technicians tested a new missile of the Hwasŏng-16Na (‘Na’ meaning B in Hangŭl). The Hwasŏng-16Na is the second North Korean hypersonic missile with a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle after the Hwasŏng-8 in 2021. The current information available on the weapon, as of publication, describes the Hwasŏng-16Na as a two-stage solid-fuel missile with a length estimated in 20-21 m and a diameter between 2.1 to 2.3 m. Probably to save up money and development, the two-stages of the Hwasŏng-16Na are the same ones of the Hwasŏng-18.

The Hwasŏng-16Na during test flight of 2nd April 2024. Source: KCNA https://i.imgur.com/3j7umdM.jpeg

Obviously the presence of the ‘B’ in the name makes it plausible that there is another version of this missile but it is not yet confirmed or shown to mass media.

Brief Nomenclature
Name US DoD Designation Other Designations
Hwasŏng-1 FROG-3
Hwasŏng-3 FROG-5
Hwasŏng-4 DF-61
Hwasŏng-5 SS-1C SCUD-B
Hwasŏng-6 SS-1C SCUD-C
Hwasŏng-7 SS-1C SCUD-D Nodong-1

(Rodong-1)

Hwasŏng-9 KN-04 SCUD-ER

SCUD-D
Nodong-1M

(Rodong-1M)

Hwasŏng-10 Nodong-2
(Rodong-2)
Taepodong-X
Musudan
BM-25
Hwasŏng-11 KN-02 Toksa
Hwasŏng-12 KN-17 “The Guam Killer”
Hwasŏng-13 KN-08

KN-08 Mod. 2
KN-14

Hwasŏng-14 KN-20
Hwasŏng-15 KN-22
Hwasŏng-16Na
Hwasŏng-17 KN-28
Hwasŏng-18

DPRK’s TEL, MEL and TEs

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has had problems, since the beginning of the development of its missile program, in developing and producing Transporter Erector Launchers, the vehicles for transporting, lifting and launching missiles. The first available were 2P16 TELs on the PT-76 amphibious light tank chassis received from the Soviet Union, along with the 3R9 Luna, 3R10 Luna-2 and 9M21 Luna-M missiles.

A 2P16 TEL with an Hwasŏng-1 SRBM in a exercise filmed by the Korean Central Broadcasting Committee (KCBC). Source: pinterest.com https://i.imgur.com/skX337k.png

It does not appear, from sources, that Korea produced the TEL 2P16 under license, although they were producing the PT-76B amphibious tank under license ,according to Korean sources, since 1967 at the Sinhung Tank Plant.

A 9P113 TEL with a Hwasŏng-3 missile parading through Kim Il-sung Square in P’yŏngyang for the 80th Anniversary of the Kim Il-sung Birthday on 15th April 1992. Source: pinterest.com https://i.imgur.com/mUN0AIR.jpg

Instead, it appears that the Koreans switched to wheeled vehicles such as the TEL 9P113, derived from the Soviet ZIL-135LM heavy duty truck with which they transported the Hwasŏng-1 and Hwasŏng-3, and FROG rockets supplied by the Soviet Union during the 1970s. In that period the DPRK also developed a TEL on a indigenous truck, the Sungri Number 2, a Korean copy of the Soviet KrAZ-255.

North Korean Sungri Number 2 launchers loaded with 2K6 Luna or Hwasŏng-1. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/3SFm367.jpg

As the KrAZ-255, the Sungri 2 was an heavy duty 10-ton 6×6 off-road truck with a 1,486 cm3 engine delivering 240 hp, enough to transport the missiles of the early Hwasŏng series.

This was the first missile carrier developed in North Korea and was for some decades, the only one.

In the following years, with the arrival of the new R-17E Elbrus from Egypt, also came an example of 9P117M1 TEL on the chassis of the Soviet heavy duty truck MAZ-543P. The Korean technicians of the Second Academy of Defense Sciences together with the Korean Workers’ Party Munitions Industry Department through its subordinate Second Economic Committee ( the developer of every other Korean carrier missile to date) tried in every way to copy it, but with poor results until 1984, when the Hwasŏng-5 entered service. Mass production at the Sungri General Automotive Factory, where Korean missile carriers are still produced today, was however very slow to start. To speed up adoption, North Korea bought some Japanese Nissan UD 8×8 or HINO 8×8 trucks from China or Soviet MAZ which were then modified by the Koreans into TELs.

In other cases, vehicles will be produced in Korea but with foreign sourced parts such as Isuzu engines. To fulfill a 1985 Iranian order for a hundred missiles and 12 TELs, both 9P117M1 and modified Nissan UDs were supplied until 1987.

Nissan UD 8×8 TEL with a Hwasŏng-5 missile in Iranian service. Source: The Armored Forces of North Korea https://i.imgur.com/6hVrnWE.jpg

The original MAZ-543P, on which the 9P117 and 9P117M1 TELs were based, according to western sources, were shipped in kits and assembled in Korea.The MAZ-543 was developed by the Belarusian Minsk Prime Mover Plant, weighed 23 tons, and was 11.65 meters (38.2 feet) long, with a fully loaded top speed of about 60 km/h (37 mph) thanks to its 520 hp D12 diesel engine.

North Korean MAZ-543P TELs with Hwasŏng-5 missiles in Kim Il-sung Square in P’yŏngyang. Source: pinterest.com https://i.imgur.com/qt18trT.jpg

Being based on the R-17 SCUD, also the Hwasŏng-9 was transported and launched by a slightly modified MAZ-543P.

A MAZ-543P TEL ready to launch a Hwasŏng-9 during live training. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/1d26isO.jpg

With the presentation of the Hwasŏng-7, a considerably larger weapon than the previous Hwasŏng-5 and -6 missiles, a new version of the 9P117 was introduced. It was modified in Korea and has no official name.

Such a TEL has a fifth axle of rear wheels, lengthening the size of the MAZ-543P by about two meters, from the original 11.65 meters to about 14 meters (46 feet). It does not seem that the last axle is connected to the transmission, transforming the vehicle into an 8×10, and probably decreasing the top speed. It is also noticeable the modification of the erection mechanism, that due to the lengthening of the chassis, has been moved back. These types of modifications allowed North Korean automotive technicians to gain experience in developing and producing heavy trucks, which proved extremely useful in the next decades.

The 10×8 version of the MAZ-543P TEL loaded with second variant of the Hwasŏng-7. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/nwpbOrn.jpg

For the Hwasŏng-10, the TEL used is a Korean variant of the MAZ-547W 12×12 with a launching cab in the center of the chassis, and a modified cockpit with a new top position on the right side of the vehicle. Such modifications, together with the fact that transportation from Belarus, where they are produced, would be impossible without being spotted by Western analysts and satellites, suggests that the DPRK has received them dismantled. The Korean workers had then assembled and modified them independently.

The Hwasŏng-10’s TEL on parade in Kim Il-sung on modified MAZ-547W. Source: edition.cnn.com https://i.imgur.com/G4W9VK9.jpg

After initial testing of the Hwasŏng-10, the Koreans realized that on takeoff, the force and heat generated by the missile damaged the TELs, so steel covers were added to the wheels to prevent extensive damage. These modifications were carried over to only a few TELs while most likely keeping some unchanged for parades, in fact, such vehicles without covers have a more massive and characteristic appearance than the true TELs.

Kim Jong-un salute the crew a Hwasŏng-10 on its MAZ-547W with protection sheets on the wheels after a successful launch. Source: KCNA https://i.imgur.com/lY5ZL3c.jpg

For the Hwasŏng-11, the MAZ-6303 series trucks were used. According to some sources, the vehicles were the MAZ-630308-224 6×6 or MAZ-630308-243 6×4 model produced in Belarus and derived as civilian models later modified in TELs by the North Korean. This showed once again that the DPRK had problems in producing even small TELs in the mid-2000s.

Hwasŏng-11 tactical ballistic missile transported by MAZ-630308s during a parade in P’yŏngyang. Source: missiledefenseadvocacy.org https://i.imgur.com/YY1koH4.jpg

These trucks have however a great advantage, thanks to the smaller dimensions of the Hwasong-11. The missile is kept inside the launcher bay, which opens at the top to erect the launcher rail and the missile along with it. This makes storage and transport safer, and makes the vehicle much more difficult to distinguish from standard transport trucks using spy satellites.

While most of the characteristics of the vehicle remain similar or identical to those of the Belarusian model, the TEL of the Hwasong-11 has a weight of about 14 tons, a 330 hp engine, and a top speed of about 80 km/h (49.7 mph) when fully loaded.

Also used for the Hwasŏng-12, were the same versions of MAZ-547W used for the Hwasŏng-10. This suggest that the Belarusian MAZ trucks were largely sent to the DPRK in the early 2010s to guarantee an adequate number of TELs for the Hwasŏng-12 that is still produced today. It’s also possible that the Koreans slowly started to produce their own copy of this heavy duty truck, probably with the help of Belarusian or Russian technicians.

The Hwasŏng-12 on parade. Its TEL had covers on the wheels to protect them from the heat generated during launch as on the Hwasŏng-10. Source: military-today.com https://i.imgur.com/u9QLxcA.jpg

New WS51200s heavy duty trucks were used for the Hwasŏng-13 and -14. These trucks were supplied by the Chinese and had, in order to circumvent international embargoes on the sale of weapons and military material, the fictitious purpose of transporting wood and were delivered with a red coloration typical of civilian vehicles produced by Wanshan Special Vehicle.

Wanshan WS51200 in its standard red livery. Source: Wanshan Sale Brochure https://i.imgur.com/RJHI9HY.jpg

Subsequently, the KPA has modified these vehicles for the transport of missiles with a hydraulic ramp that rises at 90°. The power developed by the missile’s engines during take-off would destroy or damage a common TEL so the Koreans had to develop an alternative solution, developing it into a Transporter Erector (TE), a vehicle that transports and lifts the missile but is not able to launch it. This would mean that the missile would have to be launched only in certain positions easily detectable by western satellites. This is why the majority of North Korean missiles, from Hwasŏng-13 onwards, have a launching pad that allows the crews a margin of maneuver on where to launch the missile, and are able to launch the missiles on unprepared terrain, and not from fixed launching positions.

The pads used to elevate the missiles and block them in elevated positions. Source: pinterest.com https://i.imgur.com/WiXbjaS.jpg

The pad is erected together with the missile by the TE erection system, which then moves away. Once the commissioning operations are completed, the missile is then launched.

Another positive side of TEs is that in case of an enemy attack on the launch site, the missile carrier is not involved in the launch, improving its chance to remain unharmed, and to be used in other launches.

The WS51200 is a heavy duty truck produced by Wanshan Special Vehicle of Wanshan in China based on trucks developed by MAZ and MZKT such as the MAZ-7912 and MZKT-79221. This 20-meter-long 8-axle truck weighs 42 tons and is capable of carrying up to a maximum of about 45-50 tons of cargo.

It is equipped with Cummins Diesel KTTA19-C700, a 6-cylinder in-line engine with an output of 700 hp at 2,100 rpm 19,000 cm³. It is equipped with a direct injection pump, with a weight of 2,073 kg (4,570 lbs), and a fuel tank that can hold approximately 800 liters. At full load, its consumption is estimated at 300 liters per 100 kilometers, more or less like a MZKT-79221. Although some sources claim that this vehicle, thanks to the Cummins engine, has a range of 1,000 kilometers without specifying whether full load or not.

The power of the engine allows this juggernaut to travel at a maximum speed of 60 km/h when unloaded. Of the eight axles, the first three are steerable, the last three are counter steerable, and all six are traction, allowing the vehicle a reduced turning radius.

One of Kim Jong-il’s last public appearances before his death on 17th December 2011. Clearly visible behind him is a WS51200 still in civilian livery equipped with the Hwasong-13 missile mockup. Source: pinterest.com https://i.imgur.com/ukvcWpc.jpg

For the massive Hwasŏng-15, at least four WS51200s have been modified in Korea by removing the hydraulic missile lift system, the instrument panel, and cockpit and replacing them with new models. More importantly, a ninth wheel axle was added between the sixth and seventh front wheel axles, making it the largest ICBMs transport vehicle in the world, as well as the only TE ever made with 9 axles. Although the traction was changed from 16×12 to 18×12 it seems that the original engine remained unchanged, thus decreasing the TE’s top speed.

The modified WS51200 TE for the Hwasŏng-15. Source: bulgarianmilitary.com https://i.imgur.com/GZ15PEh.jpg

It can be assumed that perhaps more WS51200s were supplied from China, or that Korea started to produce them under license. Analysts, after seeing the modification to the Chinese heavy duty truck, assumed that in the future Korea would also eventually display independently produced heavy duty TEs, and so it happened in 2020.

An 11-axle Transporter Erector appeared for the Hwasŏng-17, a unique vehicle capable of carrying the missile with estimated weight between 80 and 150 tons. It is as of publication, the largest TEL in the world.

The 11-axles TEL of the behemoth Hwasŏng-17 during the parade on 10th October 2020. Source: frontierindia.com https://i.imgur.com/ufR6BUF.jpg

Given the remarkable strides made by the Korean industry, it is likely that this new heavy duty truck will be manufactured in Korea. This is confirmed in more recent years by the appearance of the new TEL for the Hwasŏng-18, a 9 axle truck that seems to be assembled in North Korea. The Hwasŏng-16Na TEL had similar characteristics to the Hwasŏng-18’s one but is shorter, with just 7 axles instead of 9. It also had a curious shaped cover for the Hypersonic glide vehicle fixed on the TEL’s cab. Both models seem derived from Chinese trucks but produced in North Korea. As satellite images suggest, at the Kusong Tank Production plants in the past years , new facilities were created to assemble these heavy trucks.

Kim Jong-un and his daughter reaching the observation point before the Hwasŏng-18 launch test. In the background, the new North Korean-produced TEL with a protective tube. Source: KCTV https://i.imgur.com/vGiVYoL.jpg
Kim Jong-un reaching a safe area from which supervise the Hwasŏng-16Na launch test on 2nd April 2024. As clearly visible, the launching area is the same of the previous Hwasŏng-18 test. Note the curious shaped cover for the HGV warhead. Source: KCNA https://i.imgur.com/Vdq7Thg.jpeg

The number of TELs available to North Korea has roughly doubled in recent years, but that’s not the end of the story. The DPRK is currently decommissioning its “Soviet” TEL models, their heavy duty trucks with eight or more axles. These are heavy, and hard to produce and maintain in service. The Kim’s nation now has its attention on the MEL (Mobile Erector Launcher) models, a prime mover that pulls a trailer or a semitrailer on which the missile is mounted. These models, much more similar to the Chinese Dōngfēng carrier series than to the Soviet/Russian ones, entered service only in recent years.

 

Two examples of MELs in service with the Korean People’s Army. The first ones showing off an unknown type of missiles known as ICBM-1 and the second is loaded with a Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile. In the last case, the vehicle is used only to show the missile in a parade. Sources: pinterest.com and Alamy.com https://i.imgur.com/qvEaWeT.jpg & https://i.imgur.com/JiIwQ3s.jpg

In the last period, a TEL very similar to the Chinese DF-31, has been seen with a 6×4 prime mover and a 3-axle semi-trailer. It has been speculated that the prime mover used by the Korean People’s Army Strategic Rocket Force is a licensed copy, or a Korean modification of the Chinese HOWO T7H civilian prime mover. If the Korean version has similar characteristics to the Chinese one, the engine will be a copy of the MAN MC11 6-cylinder in-line diesel engine, 440 hp, 10,518 cm³ with a manual gearbox with 16 gears and a fuel tank capacity of 600 liters. Tire size 315/80R22.5, a net weight of 9,500 kg (20,944 lbs) and a maximum load of 55,000 kg (60.62 tons).A South Korean source says that this vehicle is a TIR version of the 6×6 Taebaeksan-96 licensed copy of the 6×6 KamAZ-55111 truck. This TIR is said to be a joint civilian truck project developed between Russia and Korea, and after producing a few examples with Russia, Korea exported them back home and converted them into MELs without informing the Russians.

These MELs are easier to produce, easier to maintain, are easier to conceal, and are cheaper, necessary for an industry like Korea that, until the late 2010s, had difficulty producing heavy duty missile carriers on its own. Some were used in multiple parades to show Kim Jong-un and the Korean population Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles, and therefore not launchable from TELs or MELs, such as the Pukguksong. Others were equipped with canisters of about 2 meters in diameter, and therefore are unable to carry the latest ICBMs of the Hwasŏng series, while others have been seen carrying Hwasŏng-14, and not being able to launch them. It is assumed that they are not used by the KPA only as parade vehicles, but can also act as “ammunition carriers” following the TEs,reloading them after the first launch.

Another example of missile carriers used by the DPRK are tracked TELs on tank chassis which, although it seems anachronistic, the DPRK has less difficulty in producing instead of standard wheeled TELs. The advantages of the TELs on tank chassis are, first of all, the ease of production compared to the production of TELs of Belarusian or Chinese origin, and allow for the possibility to cross rougher terrain that wheeled vehicles cannot overcome, thus increasing the number of launch sites and making it more difficult for spy satellites to identify all the favorable positions.

Tracked TELs for Pukguksong-2 or KN-15, it is not of the Hwasŏng missiles family. Source: twitter.com @KPA_bot https://i.imgur.com/K6v4VHt.jpeg

The disadvantages with respect to wheeled TELs are that the increased vibrations of a tracked chassis, that could damage the sensitive electronics of Korean missiles, and the creation of a new tracked vehicle production line that could slow down the already slow Ch’ŏnma and Songun-915 production lines.

These TELs are a good idea if they are converted from old disused tank hulls, as the Soviet Union did in the 1960s by converting the now obsolete IS-2 Mod. 1944 into renamed 2P19 TELs that mounted R-17 Elbrus missiles, and became the 8U218 missile complex.

 

The experienced crews of these TELs and TEs are considered invaluable by the KPA and prior to each test launch they are removed to a safe distance along with their vehicles to avoid losing them in accidents. Training such crews requires time and obviously a very high cost and it is not easy for Korea to replace them or their carriers in case of an accident, even now that Korea has reached a certain autonomy in the production of missile carriers.

Export

Although the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is often referred to as the “Hermit Kingdom” by the Western media, Korea has more exports than can be expected, in 1985 it signed a contract with Iran for the purchase of an unspecified number of Hwasŏng-5 ranging (according to western sources) from a minimum of 90 to a maximum of 100, and 12 TELs for a total of 500 million USD. Part of the deal was also to help Iran develop its own production line for the autonomous production of SRBMs. The first missiles arrived in Iran in 1985, beginning a reverse engineering program that led the Iranians to produce their first copy of the Hwasŏng-5, the Shahab-1 in 1987. By the same year, all missiles and TELs ordered by Iran had been delivered.

Iranian Shahab-1 on its particularly camouflaged TEL near a camouflaged civilian SUV. Source: oryxblog.com https://i.imgur.com/oT4IBVD.jpeg

Two years later, in 1989, the United Arab Emirates purchased a number of Hwasŏng-5 and some MLRS but due to “unsatisfactory quality” according to some sources or, due to US pressure according to other sources, decommissioned them very quickly.

A Hwasŏng-5 on a MAN KAT-1 TEL in service with the United Arab Emirates army. Source: oryxspioenkop.com https://i.imgur.com/4aGq0bh.jpg

In 2008, Myanmar and the DPRK signed a contract for a missile technology transfer so that Myanmar could also develop its own missile program. According to some analysts, and the People’s Republic of China, the DPRK delivered the Hwasŏng-5 to Myanmar to familiarize themselves with the operation of the missiles. The North Korean-Myanmar relationship was confirmed by the weapon’s arrival in Myanmar’s harbors, with the merchant ships being loaded not only with missiles, but also small arms and artillery rockets.

The Hwasŏng-6 was exported to Iran in the latter half of the 1980s, before being studied and then produced under license under the name of Shahab-2 from 1990 onwards.

In January 1993, General Mohsen Rezaee Commander of Iranian Revolution Guard Corps went to P’yŏngyang to sign a 2.7 billion dollars contract purchasing 300 Korean SRBMs for Iranian oil.

The Shahab-2 SRBM on a one-axle trailer used only to transport it. Source: missilethreat.csis.org https://i.imgur.com/qM6Jc81.png

A few Hwasŏng-6 were sent to Syria to be studied and produced under license with the support of the People’s Republic of China. In 1996, some Syrian technicians went to Korea for 2 weeks to study missile development techniques directly from Korean technicians.

Some missiles have been supplied to Yemen since the 1990s. In 2002, the North Korean merchant ship ‘So San’ was boarded in the Arabian Sea, after being detained by Spanish and US warships. In the cargo bay, covered by bags of concrete, there were 15 Hwasŏng-5 or 6 SRBMs. However the US did not have the authority to seize the cargo and the ship docked in Yemen. This was not the only North Korean merchant ship who arrived in Yemen, and in the years to follow, some unconfirmed sources claimed a total number of 45 North Korean Hwasŏngs arrived in Yemen.

The So San merchant ship was seized by Spanish and US forces in 2002. Source: pinterest.com https://i.imgur.com/OzqNfbt.jpeg

 

In 2009, some Hwasŏng-6 were supplied to Myanmar for the development of its own variant but nothing is known about this deal. According to SIPRI, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam purchased a total of 25 Hwasŏng-6 in 1997. An unsurprising development as Vietnam has a limited missile arsenal, and is unable to produce them. Unfortunately, no other news about their service is available. To date, the only Vietnamese unit using ballistic missiles is the 490th Missile Brigade, which had in service not only the Hwasŏng-6, but also the Soviet R-17 Elbrus variants known in west as SCUD-B and SCUD-C, fielding an unknown number of examples. For what is currently known, Vietnam is only equipped with conventional high-explosive warheads, and as Army Recognition and Defence Leaders reports, in 2023, Vietnam started upgrading its SCUD fleet with “foreign partners” to reduce the missile’s original CEP.

Members of the 490th Missile Brigade with a Soviet SCUD or Hwasŏng-6 during a SCUD missile positioning training. Source: twitter.com @AnnQuann https://i.imgur.com/nGStA1F.jpg

In 1999, according to US intelligence, Pakistan signed a contract with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the development of a MRBM.Beginning in 1993, some North Korean scientists and engineers arrived in Pakistan and began working with the Pakistani Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) to aid in the development of a new MRBM. The work proceeded expeditiously, though against strong international pressure for the Pakistanis to give up Korean aid.

The Pakistani Ghauri-I missile with the crew lined up. Source: defencetalk.com https://i.imgur.com/GYn3EKh.jpeg

In April 1998, the first launch of the missile was made 120 km from Islamabad. The Ghauri reached 350 km of apogee but during the re-entry, the conical nose of the missile melted due to the heat and the test failed. The new Pakistani administration, under international pressure, exploited the failure of the test, kicking North Korean missile engineers out of the country and ordering the KRL to continue development.

By 2003, the tests were completed and the missile, with the name Ghauri-I, officially entered service with the Pakistan Army. The Ghauri-I had a maximum range of 1,500 km, a payload of 750 kg of conventional explosive or nuclear warhead and a total weight of 15.8 tonnes. It is estimated that Pakistan has 30 Ghauri-I missiles in service and the tests of the newer all-Pakistani variant occurred in 2004, 2010, 2012 and 2015. The Circular Error Probable (CEP) is estimated at 190 meters. Now, the Ghauri-I is substituted in first strike units from its upgraded versions: the Ghauri-II and Ghauri-III.

The Ghauri-I on a semi-trailer used to present it to the public in a parade in Islamabad in the early 2000s. Source: X.com https://i.imgur.com/3YVgh57.jpeg

In the 1990s, Iran also began to develop its own version of the missile nicknamed Shahab-3, which was tested from 1998, and entered service in 2003. There are four different versions of this missile, the first one is not very different from the original Korean version, while the last one has a range of 2,000 km (1,242 miles) and a warhead composed of 5 submunitions of 280 kg each (617 lbs).

The Shahab-3 missile towed by an Iranian developed MEL. Source: fdd.org https://i.imgur.com/AOsJCzQ.jpeg

Egypt and Libya have also had or have in service a number of Hwasŏng-7. Of the Egyptian missiles not much is known, while the Libyan ones were dismantled in 2003 when dictator Mu’ammar Gaddafi agreed to the disarmament of most of the weapons of mass destruction in his country. Some analysts were skeptical of the complete destruction of this arsenal but, there is no evidence of Hwasŏng-7 launches during the Libyan Civil War or subsequent fighting between Libyan militias, therefore, we can assume that Libyan Hwasŏng were all destroyed by 2004.

Not a single Hwasŏng-9 has been exported beyond the Korean borders, while the last missile known to have been exported is the Hwasŏng-10.Some sources and rumors have claimed that the Hwasŏng-10 has been sold to Iran. It is correct to say that such a missile has been proposed for export, in fact in the report of a Myanmar delegation that visited several military facilities and factories in the DPRK in 2008, made a reference to a SCUD-F with a range of 3,000 kilometers. This more or less confirms the maximum range of the Hwasŏng-10, and also that such a missile has been proposed for export.

In 2010, it seems that Iran has purchased 19 Hwasŏng-10 missiles according to a leaked classified report from the US State Department, even if the number has never been confirmed, and at first it was thought that this information was false since Iran did not show anything similar until 2017. In January, an MRBM with similar characteristics to the Korean missile nicknamed by the Iranians Khorramshahr, from the name of an Iranian city, was tested. According to some analysts this missile is the direct descendant of the Hwasong-10.

The Iranian Khorramshahr Medium Range Ballistic Missile showed in an Iranian parade in Theran loaded on a MEL with IVECO prime mover. Source: wikipedia.com https://i.imgur.com/r7fkaa8.jpeg

In the 2000s, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq bought parts of Korean missiles in order to integrate them into their missile development. A 9 million USD contract was purchased for parts such as guidance and control systems, inertial navigation systems, on-board computers, gyroscopes, and accelerometers that were probably used on the Al-Fat’h and Al-Samud missiles. The parts were taken by ship to Syria and from there were delivered to the Iraqis. It does not appear that any Korean parts were found in any of the Iraqi missile facilities by the US in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so either they never arrived in Iraq or the Iraqis had already integrated them.

Al-Samud SRBM of the Iraqi Army. Source: b14643.de https://i.imgur.com/hF8nkc7.jpeg

Brief Korean Hwasŏng Tests

The first documented North Korean missile test occurred in 1984 when the Hwasŏng-5 was successfully tested while a few years later the Hwasŏng-6 was tested.

In 1990 the Hwasŏng-7 was tested for the first time, resulting in a successful launch test. On 29th-30th May 1993, another missile test of the Hwasŏng-7 was conducted and launched from the Hwadae missile base near Wonsan in the Sea of Japan to demonstrate it to the Iranian delegation that had come to Korea.

In 1994 Kim Il-sung, father of the nation, died. Under his government, in 9 years a total of 15 missile tests were made, of which only the one in 1993 created international problems.

Since 1994 and under Kim Jong-il, there have been 16 missile tests, in 2005 some SRBMs of the Hwasŏng series were launched in the Sea of Japan causing alarm among Western analysts.

Between the 2nd and 4th of July 2009, a total of 9 Short-Range Ballistic Missiles and two Hwasŏng-7 were launched into the Sea of Japan in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. The incident created minimal international tension with the Republic of Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China condemning such provocative testing.

With the death of Kim Jong-il in December 2011, there has been an increase in terms of Korean missile tests, in fact, from 1984 to 2011 31 missile tests were carried out against 119 tests carried out by Kim Jong-un, third of the Kim dynasty from 2011 until 2022. (in this number are counted also tests of missiles not belonging to the Hwasŏng series)

Between 18th and 20th May 2013, a couple of weeks after the issuance of the sentence to the US student Kenneth Bae arrested months earlier, Korea began another provocation by launching a total of six Hwasŏng-11 in the Sea of Japan.

On 27th February 2014, five Short-Range Ballistic Missiles were launched from Kittaeryong Missile Base in protest of joint exercises between the US Army and the Republic Of Korea Army. On 3rd March of the same year, two SRBMs were launched from Wonsan Kalma International Airport likely to test the ability to launch missiles from airstrips.

On 26th March 2014, in conjunction with an International meeting in Netherlands to discuss the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear threat, as a show of force the DPRK launched 2 Hwasŏng-7s. These missiles flew about 500 km (310 miles) into the Sea of Japan.

From 26th-29th June 2014, North Korea launched three SRBMs into the Sea of Japan landing them near the sea border with South Korea. Between 2nd and 13th July of the same year, South Korea and Japan accused the DPRK of launching six SRBMs in three separate dual launches and then crashing them into the Sea. The missiles were launched from Kaesong and Hwangju.

On 14th August 2014 a Hwasŏng-11 was launched from Wonsan while Pope Francis was visiting South Korea. In September, another Hwasŏng-11 was launched from Wonsan.

On 8th February 2015, five Short-Range Ballistic Missiles were launched into the Sea of Japan; they flew less than 200 km (124 miles) before crashing into the sea.

On March 2, SRBMs were launched into the sea as a protest to a large joint military exercise between Republic Of Korea Army and US Army. On the 5th of April, SRBMs were launched from the West Coast into the Yellow Sea; the missiles flew about 100 km (62 miles).

In 2016, several missile tests were reported, the first one was on February 7, when both South Korea and Japan detected a missile of unknown model, probably a Hwasŏng-9 from the Dongchang-ri launch site, neither South Korea nor Japan released more details.

On March 10 the DPRK launched two Short-Range Ballistic Missiles which flew about 350 km (217 miles) and crashed into the sea. On 18th March 2016 two Hwasŏng-7 were launched traveling about 600 km (372 miles) before crashing.

On 15th April 2016 the Hwasŏng-10 was tested for the first time but the test was a failure.

On 18th April and 31st May there were tests of 3 more Hwasŏng-10 without success.

On 22nd June 2016 there was the first successful missile test of the Hwasŏng-10, the missile reached an altitude of over 700 km (434 miles) and then fell into the sea.

On 18th July 2016, two SRBMs (probably Hwasŏng-6) and one Hwasŏng-7 were launched into the Sea of Japan.

On 2nd August 2016, 2 Hwasŏng-7 were launched of which one flew 1,000 km (621 miles) and ended up in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Japan. In September, a few SRBMs were launched to coincide with the end of the G20 that year.

In October 2 more Hwasŏng-10 tests failed.

In March 2017, four Hwasŏng-6 modified to have increased range, were tested by launching them towards Japan crashing 250 km (155 miles) off the Japanese coast.

On 22th March Hwasŏng-10 was tested again, the test failed.

On 5th April 2017 a Hwasŏng-12 was tested which, launched from Simpo Base flew about 50 km (31 miles) before crashing into the ocean.

On 16th April another Hwasŏng-12 was tested from Simpo Base, the launch failed on takeoff.

On 29th April, another Hwasŏng-12 missile exploded during a test.

On 15th May 2017, another Hwasŏng-12 was tested, this time successfully, the missile flew nearly 500 km (310 miles) crashing into the Sea of Japan.

On 29th May, an SRBM was launched.

On 4th June the Hwasŏng-14, the first North Korean ICBM tested, was successfully tested, another test on 28th 2017 June was again a success, flying the missile for 45 minutes.

In August other tests were done, the first one on 25th August where three SRBMs were launched and the second one on the 28th when a missile, probably Hwasŏng-12 flew 2,000 km (1,242 miles) over Japan at 400 km (248 miles) altitude. Always in 2017 a missile Hwasong-15 flew for 53 minutes at an altitude of about 4,475 km (2,780 miles) and with a range of 950 km (590 miles).

In 2018, there was a pause in missile launches given the rapprochement of international relations between South Korea, DPRK, and the United States with the Summit between the US President Donald J. Trump and Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore on 12th June 2018.

Kim Jong-un and Donald J. Trump shaking hands during the 12th June 2018 Singapore summit. Source: Shealah Craighead https://i.imgur.com/Lo4M42x.jpeg

Due to the failure of the second summit between the two on 28th February 2019 in Hanoi, Vietnam, missile testing resumed.

On 4th May 2019 some Short-Range Ballistic Missiles were tested, ending up in the Sea of Japan.

In the following months more missiles were tested, dozens of KN-23 Short-Range Ballistic Missiles, and a Pukguksong-3 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile in October.

In 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic testing was less sparse within testing of a few SRBMs in March.

On 21st March 2021 another test of two missiles, probably Hwasŏng-11 was successfully completed.

On 24th March 2022, when nearly all the western media outlets were focused on the Russo-Ukrainian war, tests of the new Hwasŏng-17 were carried out at the presence of the Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un.In this test, the Hwasŏng-17 was launched by its TE from the P’yŏngyang International Airport, where it flew for 67.5 minutes at a distance of 1,090 km (677 miles) and at a maximum altitude of 6,248.5 km (3,882 miles) and accurately hit a target in the sea, near Aomori, Japan, as reported by North Korean Central National Television. This information was confirmed by Japan and South Korea’s analysts, which note that this is the longest North Korean launch ever, even more than North Korea’s last ICBM test in 2017.

The Hwasŏng-17 during erection on the 24th March 2022 on one of the P’yŏngyang International Airport’s auxiliary airstrips. Source: KCNA https://i.imgur.com/knABqw6.jpeg

The Hwasŏng-17 during erection on the 24th March 2022 on one of the P’yŏngyang International Airport’s auxiliary airstrips. Source: KCNA https://i.imgur.com/knABqw6.jpeg

On 26th November 2023, after a complex period for the Democratic People Republic of Korea, North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un participated to view an Hwasŏng-17 launch. On this occasion, he also presented to the North Korean population and to the world his young daughter, Kim Ju-ae.

The North Korean Central National Television claimed that in the test, the Hwasŏng-17 had flown for 999,2 km (620 miles) with an apogee of over 6,000 km and for a flight time of 68 minutes.

On 2nd April 2024 the Hwasŏng-16Na was first flight tested. According to North Korean sources it flew for 1,000 km in 10 minutes (6,000 km/h) whileaccording to South Korean sources the maximum distance was 600 km. Japanese reported an altitude of 650 km beingreached, and confirmed a maximum apogee reached of 101 km. After reaching the maximum apogee, the glide vehicle flew to a height of 72.3 km, the first to land in the Japanese Sea (this was also confirmed by Japanese sources).

The Hwasŏng-16Na being erected on 2nd April 2024. In the foreground Kim Jong-un and General Jang Chang-ha, head of the Missile General Bureau. Source: KCNA https://i.imgur.com/EhSG14q.jpeg

The total number of tests in this list are only tests of Hwasŏng series missiles.

From 1984 to 2021, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea conducted 151 missile tests including Hwasŏng series missiles, Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles, space launches, and other land-based missiles not part of the Hwasŏng series.In 37 years, 15 tests were completed under Kim Il-sung’s government, 16 under Kim Jong-il and a total of 120 under Kim Jong-un’s government for an 80% of missile tests in the last 10 years.

North Korean Hwasŏng-3 loaded on a Soviet-produced 9P113 Transporter Erector Launcher.

North Korean Hwasŏng-5 loaded on a Belarusian-produced 9P117M1 Transporter Erector Launcher.

North Korean Hwasŏng-6 loaded on a Belarusian-produced 9P117M1 Transporter Erector Launcher.

North Korean Hwasŏng-7 (second version) loaded on a Belarusian-produced 9P117M1 Transporter Erector Launcher modified in North Korea to fit the new missile.

North Korean Hwasŏng-11 loaded on a Belarusian-produced MAZ-630308 Transporter Erector Launcher.

Illustrations

North Korean Hwasŏng-3 loaded on a Soviet-produced 9P113 Transporter Erector Launcher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Korean Hwasŏng-5 loaded on a Belarusian-produced 9P117M1 Transporter Erector Launcher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Korean Hwasŏng-6 loaded on a Belarusian-produced 9P117M1 Transporter Erector Launcher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Korean Hwasŏng-7 (second version) loaded on a Belarusian-produced 9P117M1 Transporter Erector Launcher modified in North Korea to fit the new missile.

North Korean Hwasŏng-11 loaded on a Belarusian-produced MAZ-630308 Transporter Erector Launcher.

Credits

Written by Arturo Giusti

Edited by Henry H.

Illustrated by Carpaticus

Sources:

The Armed Forces of North Korea, On The Path Of Songun – Stijn Mitzer & Joost Oliemans

Reuters; various

autoopt.ru; Product Catalog

sinotruk.com; Product Catalog

missilethreat.csis.org

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, 30 September 2004, Volume 2 – Central Intelligence Agency

Korean People’s Army Journal Volume 1 Number 2 – Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.

 

Korean People’s Airforce Pilots deployed during the Yom Kippur War

 

The North Korean pilots who flew Egyptian warplanes during the Yom Kippur War during a ceremony before their return to DPRK. (North Korea’s Armed Forces: On the Path of Songun)

After three years of extreme tension between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel in October 1973, Egyptian president Muhammad Anwar el-Sadat signed an agreement with the Arab Republic of Syria to launch a combined attack on the State of Israel. The war began on the 6th October 1973 and lasted for 19 days. Not many know that 20 pilots of the Korean People’s Army Air and Anti-Air Force (KPAAF) were involved in Egyptian air force operations.

Egyptian-Korean Relations

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had always maintained a good relationship with the Arab Republic of Egypt, beginning in the early 1950s.The Asian country always supported the position of the former Egyptian president ,Nasser, to nationalize the Suez Canal, and financially helped the country during the Suez Crisis of 1956. The conflict saw the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) launch an attack in the Sinai peninsula, supported by British and French forces that simultaneously landed in Port Said, Egypt. On 3rd November 1956, the DPRK issued a statement of solidarity with Egypt and sent the symbolic figure of 60,000 DPRK’s Wons (about 5,000 USD) to support the Egyptian Army. Between 1957 and 1963 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Arab Republic of Egypt signed some cultural and commercial agreements and opened in the capital cities of both countries.

A statue of the muzzle and bayonet of an AK-47, given to Egypt by North Korea, honors the military partnership between the two countries. (The New York Times)

During the 1960s, Egypt maintained an unclear relationship with North Korea, abstaining from some votes in favor of the DPRK during United Nations meetings until 1962, when Israel, and the Republic of Korea chose not to pursue diplomatic and trade relations.

North Korean embassy in Cairo. (The New York Times)

After the Six Days War, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sent Egypt 5,000 tons of cereals as aid. In response, Egyptian delegations supported the North Korean regime at the United Nations meetings and in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) meetings.

The Non-Aligned Movement was created after a meeting in Belgrade, in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 1st September 1961. Among its founders was Egyptian president Nasser, Yugoslavian leader Tito, Indian Prime Minister, Ghanaian President and Indonesian President. This movement was created because, after the Korean War, some nations did not want to take sides against Cold War opponents and be drawn into potential conflicts. In 1975 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea joined the movement with Egyptian support.

Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly of North Korea, meets with then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at the presidential palace in Cairo, Egypt, 26th July 2007. (worldpoliticsreview.com)

Egyptian MiG-21

The Arab Republic of Egypt received its first MiG-21s from the Soviets in 1963. By the end of that year, the Egyptian Air Force had in its service a total of 60 MiG-21F-13s. These were followed, until the end of the decade, by 40 or 50 MiG-21PFs.

The MiG-21F-13 was an upgraded version of the MiG-21 platform with upgraded on-board radar, new optics, a single 30 mm cannon and the possibility to load 2 Vympel K-13 short-range infrared homing Air-to-Air Missiles (AAMs). In the designation, the ‘F’ refers to ‘Forsirovannyy’ (English: Uprated) and ‘13’ refers to the K-13 missiles.
The MiG-21PF was a heavily updated version of the MiG-21 bringing it to the “Second Generation” of fighters. The upgrades included new turbojet engine and rails for RS-2US Adams instead of K-13 missiles.

Two Egyptian MiG-21F13s of the 26 Squadron ‘Black Raven’ armed with R-3S missiles. (Arab MiG-19, MiG-21 Units in Combat)

The first deployment of the Egyptian MiGs was during the Six Days War where the majority of them were destroyed at their airfields by Israeli preemptive air attacks. The few brave Egyptian pilots that had the possibility to take off in these hours were quickly overwhelmed by better-trained Israeli pilots. The Israeli attack was divided in 4 different waves; in the first one, Israeli pilots claimed to have shot down 8 Egyptian planes, 7 of which were MiG-21s while Egypt had claimed 5 planes shot down by MiG-21PFs.In the second wave, Israeli pilots claimed 4 MiG-21s shot down. At the end of the attacks, Egypt had lost about 100 MiG-21s out of 110 owned by its Air Force.

The few surviving MiG-21s were used in the last days of war to try and slow down the Israeli ground forces in the Sinai peninsula. They were however, only armed with unguided 57 mm rockets. These few MiGs were manned by the surviving pilots of the different squadrons whose aircraft had been lost the previous days. Some of them were deployed for air defense in an air base near Cairo, while the rest were deployed at Inshas air base, north of Cairo, and took part in the attacks against Israeli ground force Israeli forces.

After the Six Days War, Egypt quickly restored its MiG-21 inventory, buying some second-hand MiG from the Soviet Union, and others from Algeria.

About a month after the war, on 15th July 1967, Egyptian MiGs shot down an Israeli Mirage III CJ over Sinai skies at the cost of two MiGs. By the end of 1968, the Egyptian Air Force had in service 115 MiG-21s that were extensively used against Israeli Air Force Mirages, with results still debated today. The Egyptian pilots were not as well trained as the Israeli pilots, and this often led to heavy losses when flying against the IAF.

Another MiG-21F-13 of the 26 Squadron in 1969 at the Sayah el-Sharif air base. (Arab MiG-19 MiG-21 Units in Combat)

1969 was a year full of changes for the Egyptian Air Force, in the early months of the year, the radar equipped MiG-21PFMs were equipped with GP-9 gun pods, delivered by the Soviet Union. The gun pods were a great advantage for the MiGs giving them more possibilities of success in dog-fights where the distances between the planes were less than 1,000 meters, where their R-3S missiles (AA-2 Atoll) were less useful.

In late 1969, the MiG-21Ms, with four missile rails and a new internal 23 mm GSh-23L automatic cannon arrived from the Soviet Union. On the 11th of September 1969, Egyptian MiG-21 pilots shot down 3 Israeli Mirages III, two of those manned by Israeli veterans. This battle was widely publicized in Egypt, but the Egyptian government did not mention that to shoot down the three Israeli planes, Egypt lost 5 MiGs and 3 other planes. Between February and March 1970, a total of 80 MiG-21MFs with improved radars and new engines arrived in Egypt.

According to a Soviet report, from July to December 1969, during the War of Attrition fought between the Six Days War and the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian Air Force lost 72 war planes, 53 of them shot down by Israeli forces. The majority of them were MiG-21s. Due to the poor results of the Egyptian Air Force in the War of Attrition, Egyptian President Nasser was forced to ask the Soviet Union for more help. In March 1970, the first Soviet pilots, and Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) battery technicians, arrived in Egypt.

On the 13th of April 1970, there was the first Soviet-Israeli air battle in which two MiG-21MFs manned by Soviet pilots, attacked two Israeli F-4 Phantom II. It is not clear if the Israeli planes were shot down or not. In a similar situation, 5 days later, a Soviet MiG-21MF damaged an Israeli RF-4E recon plane. From March to August of 1970, Egypt, thanks to Soviet forces deployed in the country, shot down 8 Israeli planes with S-125 (NATO code SA-3 Goa) Surface-to-Air Missiles, and 13 other planes were shot down by MiG-21s. Egypt would only lose 5 MiG-21s.

A MiG-21MF of the Soviet 135th Air Regiment in Egypt. The plane showed off the original Soviet camouflage scheme applied at the Gorky plant in the Soviet Union where the MiG-21s were produced. (Soviet Military Archives via Arab MiG-19 MiG-21 Units in Combat)

In October 1973, the Egyptian Air Force had at its disposal 770 combat aircraft of which about 150 of these were in storage. In total they could rely on 620 aircraft and over 100 helicopters. The planes were: 220 MiG-21s, 200 MiG-17 Fighter bombers, 120 Su-7 Fighter bombers, 18 Tupolev Tu-16 Bombers, 40-50 Il-14 and An-12 Cargo planes, 10 Il-28 Bombers and 100-140 MiL Mi-1; Mi-4; Mi-6 and Mi-8 helicopters. These were integrated with a squadron of MiG-21F-13 from Algeria, another squadron of MiG-21PFs from Algeria that was mainly deployed to defend Cairo region skies, and some Pakistani Instructors that flew some Egyptian MiGs during the war.

The Soviet MiG-21 was less modern than the American F-4 air superiority fighter, although it was more maneuverable than the early models of the Phantom and was much simpler to keep running. During the air combat in the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the difference was often made by the pilot’s experience, giving an advantage to the Israeli pilots who, in some cases, had more experience than the US pilots deployed in Vietnam. The Egyptian pilots had, for the most part, deficient training and lacked experience.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was also familiar with the MiG 21, and received its first MiG-21F-13’s in late 1962, receiving more until 1965 for a total of 14 fighters. In the following years, many MiG-21PFMs arrived in the Asian country. This was a big step forward for the Korean Air Force as the MiG-21s introduced the possibility for the Korean pilots to use Air-to-Air Missiles (AAMs) such as the R-3S (AA-2 Atoll) infrared homing missiles. The later MiG-21PFM would give them the ability to to use both the R-3S and the RS-2U, also known as Kaliningrad K-5M (NATO Code AA-1 Alkali), beam-riding guided missile.

A North Korean MiG-21MF on a runway near P’yŏngyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. (jetphotos.net)

Korean Squadron in Egypt

After the deterioration of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, the new Egyptian president Sadat chased the Soviet advisors out of the country and stopped buying their military equipment, and this decision led to a very serious problem.

Not only were Soviet advisors deployed in the Arab Republic of Egypt, but also instructors, the technicians of Surface-to-Air Missiles batteries, and even some combat pilots.

Roughly 30% of the 400 Egyptian combat planes were manned by Soviet pilots and even the 20% of the SAM batteries were manned by Soviets that were leaving the country.

Few Egyptian pilots were well trained, and many had to finish their training very hastily due to the expatriation of Soviet trainers. The last Soviet soldiers deployed in Egypt left the country in July 1973.

Some of the Korean pilots and ground crew members of the Korean Air Force that were sent to Egypt. These were probably the Koreans that arrived after the start of the Yom Kippur War. (Egyptian Army)

The loss of Soviet expertise would force the Egyptians to look elsewhere for training and technical advisors. Between 1st to 7th March 1973 a delegation from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea led by Kang Ryang-uk, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPRK, visited Egypt. It was during this visit that Egyptian Military’s Chief of Staff, Saad Al Shazly, asked the Korean politician to help Egypt by sending a single squadron of pilots to give to the Egyptian pilots reliable combat training.

After solving the bureaucratic problems, starting from 6th to 13th April 1973, General Al Shazly went to the DPRK, and during his trip he met Korean leader Kim Il-sung. They finalized the plan and signed an agreement, and a few months later the Korean pilots arrived in the country. For the Korean pilots, it was not difficult to fly the Egyptian aircraft because they were also flying the same variants of the MiG-21 in Korea. Even for the Korean SAM battery technicians, it was not a problem to use the Egyptian SAM batteries because, in Korea, they operated S-75 and the HQ-2, their Chinese copy, which proved similar enough to the systems in Egyptian service.

An Egyptian S-75 captured in Sinai by the Israeli soldiers in 1967. (bukvoed.livejournal.com)

A total of 20 pilots, 8 ground crew guides, 5 translators, 3 administrative staffers, 1 political commissar, 1 military doctor, and 1 military chief left Korea, reaching Moscow dressed as foreign students, and arrived in Egypt in late June. They started their deployment in Bir Alida air base in southern Egypt in July 1973, the same month that Soviet forces abandoned the country.

These events are mentioned in an article written by analyst Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. about the DPRK’s deployment in other nations in the KPA Journal magazine. The analyst mentions the arrival of 30 pilots while other less reliable sources like newspaper articles sometimes claim 10 pilots arrived in Egypt. However, the commander of this small Korean squadron was Major General Cho Myong-rok (also transliterated as Jo Myong Rok). The numbers were also confirmed by Captain Lee Chol-su, a North Korean defector pilot who crossed the Korean Demilitarized Zone in a MiG-19 in May 1996. During some interviews, Capt. Chol-su confirmed the source of the 20 pilots.

Mayor General Cho Myong-rok. (KPA Journal Vol. 1, No. 9)

Although it may seem strange today, North Korea had well trained pilots before the fall of the Soviet Union, when their economy could support sizable training programs. Many were trained by North Korean veterans that participated in the Korean War, Soviet advisors, or even at facilities in the Soviet Union together with Soviet rookies. An unknown number of the pilots under Cho Myong-rok were veterans, who had already seen combat in Vietnam, where they flew Vietnamese planes against the United States Air Force. Some of them had more than 2,000 flight hours on the MiG-21. The news of the Korean pilots in Egypt did not remain secret for long.

On 15th August 1973, the Israeli Military Command reported that Israeli Intelligence discovered that between 10 and 20 Korean pilots were flying Egyptian fighter planes. This Israeli claim was confirmed on the same day by the US State Department that also stated that probably they were more than 20.

12 days after the war broke out, on 18th October 1973, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea announced officially that they would send a contingent of pilots to support the Arab Coalition air forces. The KPA Journal states that a North Korean defector, during an interrogation, said that 500 North Korean pilots were sent to Egypt and Syria to pilot their planes after the DPRK’s announcement. This seems like an exaggerated number, as before the war, Egypt had only 620 planes and a maximum of 140 helicopters, while Syria had 200 MIG-21s, 80 MIG-17s, 80 SU-7s and 36 MiL Mi-4, Mi-6 and Mi-8 helicopters. If this statement is true, the DPRK alone had sent enough pilots to fly about 30% of the Arab Coalition planes and helicopters. The number probably also included ground crews, translators, chiefs, officers, and other assorted personnel.

The Korean pilots left Egypt shortly after the war probably between late 1973 to early 1974 leaving the Arab country with a small contingent of veteran pilots for training. There is little information about Korean People’s Army Air Force pilots during the Yom Kippur war, even if some unconfirmed reports mention the deployment of Korean pilots that flew Egyptian and Syrian planes. South Korean newspaper, Kyong Hyang Shimbun, states that the Israeli Ministry of Defence declared that Korean pilots flew 8 MiG-21s during the war and shot down several Israeli F-4 Phantoms, however, this information is not confirmed.

Engagement of 6th December 1973

An Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-4 ‘Kurnass’ model with a 1973 camouflage scheme. (edokunscalemodelingpage.blogspot.com)

On 6th December 1973, two Israeli F-4E ‘Kurnass’ from the 69th Squadron, one crewed by Yiftach Shadmi and Meir Gur, while the second was piloted by Shpitzer and Ofer together, flew a mission at the Egyptian border. They were supported by another two ‘Kurnass’ of the 119 Squadron.

These four planes, took off from Ramat David Air Base and were sent on the West sector to patrol the Egyptian border. The pilots were allowed to trespass into Egypt, and after a couple of low level crosses, they entered Egyptian territory at high altitude, and then flew back over the Suez Canal and continued patrolling their side of the border.

Israeli pilots kills
Pilot’s name Kills
Meir Gur 3
Yiftach Shadmi 3

They were sent in the area because the Israeli command wanted to patrol the southern area of Egypt, where they thought the Egyptians were preparing something.

Pilot Meir Gur reported that at some point, they received orders to search for targets in Egyptian territory. He and his wingman were flying at 20,000 – 25,000 feet while the two ‘Kurnass’ of 119 Squadron were apparently above them.The on-board radars were not working very well, and that day saw heavy overcast and fog. Gur noticed a pair of ‘blips’ on its radar display, and they closed the distance to investigate.

When the Israeli pilots found the ‘Blips’ they dropped their external fuel tanks and continued to search at high speed, but they could still see the bright spots on the radar, and the distance didn’t change. This meant that the two ‘Blips’ were flying at a similar speed to them. Meir’s radar performed a high to low search but it was very difficult to aim with the interference of the ground clutter.

Thanks to a GCI (Ground Control Intercept) station, the Israeli F-4Es of the 69th Squadron were able to track the enemy targets that were now in the range of their AIM-7 Air-to-Air missiles. However the Israeli pilots preferred to wait to engage the targets because of the bad weather, they did not know if the ‘blips’ were warplanes. Another problem was the fog that prevented the wingmen from being seen, so the Israeli pilots decided not to launch the missiles.

A few moments later, two Egyptian MiG-21s appeared in the Israeli pilot’s field of view and the two ‘Kurnass’ of the 69 Squadron immediately engaged.

One of the two MiGs escaped the skirmish while the other one remained for a 1 vs 2 air battle. From the Israeli pilots’ testimonies, the MiG-21 pilot, revealed to be a Korean some years later, was extraordinarily good with excellent reaction times and great knowledge in the maneuverability of his plane.

The Korean People’s Army Air Force pilot was probably a Vietnam War veteran, or otherwise a very well trained pilot. He tried many times to force the Israeli pilots to fight a low speed duel, where he had the advantage, but the Israeli pilots insisted on maintaining high speed.

The 119 Squadron pilots, above the 69th Squadron planes, asked by radio for their fellows to step aside, but the 69th Squadron’s F-4Es did not step aside, forcing the Korean pilot to maintain high speed, putting him at a disadvantage against the faster Israeli F-4s.

After a long chase, the MiG-21 was in range of Air-to-Air missiles and Yiftach Shadmi and Meir Gur’s F-4 launched two AIM-9Ds Air-to-Air missiles. Immediately after, Shpitzer and Ofer’s F-4 that was behind the other 69 Squadron plane, about 200 meters on a side, launched an AIM-9D too. This was a dangerous maneuver, the two Israeli planes risked shooting down each other with the missiles and, at the same time, Shpitzer and Ofer’s F-4 ‘Kurnass’ were at risk of ending up in the jet wake of the F-4 of Shadmi and Gur.

The first AIM-9D went close to the target and exploded but the MiG-21 emerged intact from the explosion and continued its flight. The second and third AIM-9Ds exploded near the target too but, for unknown reasons even in this case, the MiG-21 emerged from the fireballs intact. The Israeli pilots, now desperately low on fuel, were forced to disengage and return to base. Meir Gur was the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) of one of the two F-4Es, and looking back he saw the MiG was intact, but trailing white smoke. From Meir’s testimony, it is known that the Korean pilot turned his plane west and descended to a low altitude. Meir continued to keep an eye on it to check if it crashed on the ground but no explosions were seen.

An Egyptian MiG-21 steaming fuel. Photo taken a few seconds before his crash near the Suez Canal on the last day of war. This was probably a similar situation that Meir Gur saw on 6th December 1973. (Arab MiG-19 MiG-21 Units in Combat)

While the Israeli planes were near the Suez Canal, Gur saw something that seized his attention. Meir is said to have seen the characteristic smoke trail of a Surface-to-Air Missile launched by the Egyptians. A few tenths of seconds later a giant explosion was visible at about 20,000 feet. Copilot Gur checked on his radar, but all the four ‘Kurnass’ were leaving the Egyptian airspace. By mistake, the Egyptian Anti-Aircraft missile batteries shot down one of their own MiGs manned by the Korean pilot.

When the planes landed safely home the credit was split between the two 69 Squadron plane crews. Meir Gur reported what he saw to the command, and some time later Israeli Intelligence confirmed his story: Egyptian Air Defense forces shut down their own MiG.

Unfortunately nothing is known about the nameless Korean pilot, if he survived ejecting , or if he died by friendly fire. Only in 2019 did the Israeli Air Force and Intelligence service make public the events of that day, informing the world and the Israeli pilots involved in the affair that the MiG pilot was from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Aftermath & Conclusion

After the Yom Kippur War, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea maintained a small training squadron in Egypt and also some other training units for the SAM batteries and other tasks.

Kim Il-Sung and a Korean pilot together with some Egyptian veteran pilots in Korea after the war. All of the men in the photo (Kim Il-sung apart) had fought during the Yom Kippur War. (reddit.com _ART_TANK_)

Sadat agreed, the DPRK’s request to receive some R-17 Elbrus (NATO Code SS-1C Scud-B) tactical ballistic missiles and a MaZ TEL (Transporter Erector Launcher) to start its own missile program.

In 1990s the Arab Republic of Egypt bought from Korea an unknown number of Scud-C missiles, they seem to be Hwasŏng-7 Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs). In 2008 Egyptian telecommunication company Orascom had the permission to create a 3G phone network called Koryolink in Korea.

At the same time Egypt permitted Korea, until the mid 2010s, to use Port Said as safe harbor to unload military equipment that would be sent all over the African continent.To give an example, the United Nations had declared that in 2016 a Korean merchant ship loaded with 30,000 RPGs arrived in Port Said. They were probably later delivered to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In 2017 after the US slashed roughly $300 million due the Egyptian help in Korean illegal trades and due some failure to respect human rights. Afterwards, Egyptian Defense Minister Sedki Sobhi, during a visit to the Republic of Korea, said that Egypt had cut all military relationships with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Illustrations

MiG-21 (5072), 1973.
MiG-21, No 21 Squadron, Salihiyah, Egypt. 1973.
F-4E Kurnass.

Gallery

An Egyptian S-125 Surface-to-Air missiles battery in 1973.(bukvoed.livejournal.com)
MiG-21MF with a ‘Nile’ three-tone camouflage in 1971. (Arab MiG-19 MiG-21 Units in Combat)
A total of 12 2P16 TELs equipped with 9M21 Luna-M during a parade in Cairo in 1974. (bukvoed.livejournal.com)

Credits

Written by Arturo G.

Edited by Henry H.

Illustrated by Godzilla

Sources

Air Operations During The 1973 Arab-Israeli War And The Implications – Global Security

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/north-korea-fight-israel-mig21s-syria-egypt

https://apnews.com/article/da0e376a33020c988eaa2ab19e2e3041

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-unknown-story-of-the-israeli-f-4s-that-dogfighted-with-north-korean-mig-21s-during-the-yom-kippur-war/

Fact: North Korean Jet Fighters Fought Against Israel in the Yom Kippur War – The Aviation Geek Club – Dario Leone

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Alexander Mladenov – Osprey Publishing Air Vanguard 14

https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/the-egypt-north-korea-connection/

Arab MiG-19 MiG-21 Units in Combat – David Nicolle and Mark Styling – Osprey Combat Aircraft 44

North Korea’s Armed Forces: On the Path of Songun – Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans

 

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.

Lockheed C-130 in Argentine Service

Argentina (11 Aircraft)
Transport Aircraft

TC-63 and its crew on Puerto Argentino during the war for the disputed island. The pilots are holding a captured British Flag. (zona-militar)

Introduction

The pages of history are rich in aircraft that have a worthy place in the hall of fame of aviation. From fighters like the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, to ground attack aircraft, such as the Ju-87 Stuka or the Su-25 Frogfoot, or to civilian aircraft like the Queen of the skies, the world renowned Boeing 747 series.

One of these famous planes is the legendary Lockheed Martin C-130. The Hercules, as it is also known, has a place in the aviation hall of fame. From its service during the Vietnam War, to Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and, more recently, the evacuation from Afghanistan of American forces, the C-130 proved to be a valuable asset to its operators. However, it is an aircraft with just as excellent a reputation in foreign service.

By the mid 1960s, Argentina did not have a viable Airlifter, the latest one in use being the severely outdated Ju-52. The Argentine Air Force was looking to satisfy this necessity, and it did so by acquiring the C-130 mid-weight air transport.

About the Hercules

After the Korean War, planes like the C-47, C-119, and C-46 were already starting to show their age and were no longer adequate for the needs of the time. Improvements had to be made, and fast.

On the 2nd of February 1951, the USAF issued a GOR (General Operating Requirement) for a new transport to Boeing, Fairchild, Lockheed, Douglass, Martin, Chase Aircraft, North American, Northrop, and Airlifts Inc.

This new transport plane was required to carry at least 92 passengers, 72 combat troops or 64 paratroopers in a cargo compartment that should be at least 41 ft. (12 m) long, 9 ft. high (2.7 m), and 10 ft. wide (3 m).

The USAF was very emphatic that this plane had to be specially designed as a military aircraft, and not a converted passenger plane. The use of a hinged loading ramp at the rear was also strongly suggested and newer technologies, like turboprop engines, were also available if the company chose to incorporate them. This specific engine could produce structural damage if it suffered a mid-flight failure, so security measures and structural reinforcement had to be taken.

The first prototype, the YC-130, first flew on the 23rd of August 1954. Since then, 29 versions have been developed, and it is still being operated by over 70+ countries, with the H variant, one of the combat cargo versions, being the most widespread of them all.

The variants of the C-130 range from combat cargo, tanker (KC-130), maritime patrol (PC-130), a psychological warfare version(EC-130J Commando Solo), a recon variant created for the then Iranian Imperial Air Force, and a ground attack (AC-130 Specter/Spooky) model equipped with automatic high caliber cannons and a 105 mm howitzer.

It is praised by its crews as a gentle and comfortable aircraft to fly, with very responsive controls. It is also considered a very maneuverable aircraft for its size. Designed to be structurally strong and able to land in even the harshest of terrains, it was a natural choice for the Argentine Air Force considering it had unpaved runways in Antarctica, and improvised landing strips in northern Argentina. The capability of this plane to also perform medical extraction missions was also crucial, as Argentina had no available aircraft to perform this kind of mission, let alone an aircraft capable to operate in rugged terrain or in the middle of a combat situation. This aircraft is optimized to perform combat transport duties, as it is sturdy, being able to resist small arms and even missile fragments. It also requires a very short take-off and landing distance, meaning it does not need a paved runway for take-offs or landings. All of these characteristics made it the perfect choice for the Argentines, as with this plane, they would have a choice besides ships for transporting personnel and supplies to their Antarctic bases, performing aeromedical evacuations, and supplying troops on the frontlines via airdrops or with a regular landing near the area of operations, without the need of a specialized or regular airstrip.

Layout of an aeromedical C-130 H (brookside press)

Its cargo bay is wide and tall, making it possible for its operators to load a variety of vehicles, personnel, and regular cargo. Humvees, paratroopers, APCs, and light tanks are many examples of the type of cargo the Hercules can carry. Its size goes according to the requirements stipulated in the GOR issued by the USAF.

Crew layout of a regular C-130. The pilot sits at the right of the picture, the copilot to the left, navigator center, the flight engineer at the far left, and cargo bay master sits opposite him. This layout is common for all variants. (picryl)

The first three, TC-61, TC-62, and TC-63

On the 15th of September 1967, a contract was signed between the FAA (Argentine Air Force, shortened in Spanish) and the USAF for the purchase of three C-130Es. Later that year, a training course was authorized and the instruction of the future crews for these aircraft began in late October. In July 1968, the first crew departed from Argentina for Sewart AFB, where a thorough training took place, and the pilots were introduced to the aircraft, its components, parts, manuals, and operation instructions. A crew of mechanics, as well as then Vice commodore (NATO equivalent Lt. Colonel) Ricardo Francisco Degano arrived at Sewart AFB. The mechanics were also assigned to an instruction course on the maintenance and repairing of the aircraft. Degano was assigned later that year as the first Squadron Chief once all training operations were concluded.

All personnel were then transported by the USAF to Marietta, Georgia, where the Lockheed construction and design facilities were located, and later accommodated at USAF Dobbins Air Reserve Base. There, the Argentine officers and petty officers received and inspected the three units bought by the FAA, their respective spare parts, technical support team, as well as operative and logistical teams, as signed in the contract. Even though the airplanes were received by the Air Force envoys in Marietta, the official reception took place in the Bahamas due to budget restrictions. This was a legal tax loop orchestrated by the USAF and FAA so that Argentina paid less in taxes and managed to afford 3 units of the C-130. Later that week, they flew back to Dobbins ARB, the planes then being piloted by Argentine crews.

In early December 1968, the three Hercules took off from Dobbins ARB, stopped in Howard AFB, and then proceeded to Mendoza International Airport in Argentina. A day later, the three C-130s took off, setting course to and later landing at the 1st Air Brigade base in El Palomar, Buenos Aires province.

Later that month, they received their official designation numbers, TC-61, TC-62, which in 1977 was modernized to the H variant, and TC-63, which was also later modified to the H variant .

On April 11, 1970, TC-61 was the first Hercules to land at the Marambio Joint forces military base in Argentine Antarctica. TC-61 is still in operational service as of today and her only remarkable duties were transport missions and airdrop missions over the Malvinas during the Conflict.

After some time in service, the Argentine crews began to call their C-130s “chanchas” (Spanish for female pig, remarking their big size and relatively slow speed). As of today, the crews still give this nickname to these planes.

TC-62

Assigned to meteorological duties on the flight route of Rio Gallegos, Santa Cruz province – Petrel Naval Base, Argentine Antarctica, this plane performed its tasks up until around mid-1975. It also performed mail delivery and cargo delivery duties to said base and to Marambio base.

By that time, It was transferred to perform logistical duties to fight off the Peronist and Communist guerrillas that were waging an insurrection in the northern part of the country. On the 28th of August 1975, it was destroyed by a terrorist attack while taking off from the international airport of Tucuman.

An IED was detonated on the runway, causing the aircraft to explode, and engulfed in flames as it skidded off the runway; 6 of the 144 Gendarmerie officers onboard (the Gendarmerie being the Argentine paramilitary force that performs both police and COIN/border patrol duties) were killed, and 28 others were injured, among them the 6 crewmembers.

TC-62 destroyed after the terrorist attack. (La Razon)

During the Malvinas/Falklands war, on the 1st of June 1982, TC-63, war codename “Tiza” (chalk), was given the order to scramble towards the last known position of the enemy fleet. The inclement weather, thick clouds and low visibility gave this plane the perfect opportunity to fly undercover and deliver supplies to the area of operations. After landing in Puerto Argentino (Port Stanley) and delivering its payload, TC-63 took off from the landing strip at 8:53 AM to perform a recon mission. It was tasked with looking for enemy vessels over the San Carlos Bay and designating them as targets for the Canberras and A-4s of the FAA.

At 10:25 AM, TC-63 reached her waypoint, and her radar signal was detected by HMS Minerva, the British vessel designated to control the airspace over that region. 20 miles north of the San Carlos Bay, a pair of Sea Harriers from the Royal Navy’s 801st Naval Air Squadron which were on combat air patrol duties. Piloted by Lieutenant Commander Nigel Wards and Lieutenant Steve Thomas, they scrambled towards the last known location of the Argentine Hercules.

Once intercepted, Ward launched an AIM-9L Sidewinder that plunged into the sea, as it was fired at an exaggerated range from its target. Ward pushed the throttle on his Sea Harrier, closed the gap with TC-63, and fired his second Sidewinder, which successfully impacted the right wing of the plane between engine 3 and 4.

Despite this severe damage, the Hercules, being loyal to its name, kept on flying firm and strong. Ward got even closer to the aircraft and fired his cannon upon it. The right wing finally broke off and the C-130 began to spiral down into the sea, disintegrating on impact. All 7 crew members died.

Illustration of the shoot down of TC-63. (Keith Woodcock)

TC-64

In early 1971, a fourth and fifth unit were purchased, this time both being H variants that differed from earlier E models by having updated T56-A-T5 turboprops, a redesigned outer wing, updated avionics, and other minor improvements. Similarly, both the C-130E and H carried 6,700 gallons of fuel in six integral wing tanks. Under each wing of the C-130E/H was an external pylon fuel tank with a capacity of 1,300 gallons. A pressure refueling point was in the aft side wheel well fairing for ground refueling. These new units were then designated with the identification numbers TC-64 and TC-65. One of these aircraft (TC-64) was the third to land in Puerto Argentino (also called Port Stanley by the British) under the war callsign Litro 3. On May 20, 1982, Litro 3 was shot at by friendly anti-air fire and by ground troops’ small arms fire over Fox bay, while it was on an airdrop supply mission to aid the Argentine 8th Marine division. Luckily, TC-64 managed to drop all her 10 cargo containers to aid the Navy marine division and fled the AO untouched.

The author has a personal connection with TC-64 or simply “64”, as the crew call it. It is common for crews to refer to individual Hercules by their designation numbers alone. That specific aircraft flew the author to see his father in 2019, who was stationed as an Officer in Command of the Resistencia AFB in Chaco province, Northern Argentina.

Hercules TC-64 taxiing in the Posadas International Airport, Misiones province, unknown date. This civilian airport also has the role of military airport for the Air Force. (FAA)

TC-65

TC-65 did not have a future as bright or lengthy as TC-64. It was assigned to the 1st Squadron, Transport Group 1 in late December 1971 and performed numerous duties over the Antarctic Argentine base of Marambio, from transport of supplies, MedEvacs, and VIP/personnel transport.

With the start of the Malvinas/Falklands war, 65 was assigned to perform transport duties on the Islands’ theater of operations. It was the last Hercules to flee the Islands. It was later abandoned in 2006 at El Palomar Airbase, with her nose severely damaged, and the plane lacking its engines. It was then cannibalized and salvaged for parts.

TC-65 in late December 2021. The poor state of the aircraft as of today can be appreciated. It was deprived of all critical and useful elements; its fuselage was sold as scrap in the final week of that month. (aerospotter)

TC-66

TC-66 was purchased by the FAA in mid-1972 and delivered to Argentina in September of the same year. It was also assigned to the 1st Squadron, Transport Group 1 and became the first plane to perform a trans-antarctic intercontinental flight in the world, connecting the International Airport “Jorge Newbery” in Buenos Aires, to McMurdo base in Antarctica, Christchurch in New Zealand, and Canberra in Australia. The trip was made in December 1973 and took 17 hours and 55 minutes.

During landing on Rio Grande base in Tierra del Fuego on the 11th of February 1998, it suffered an estimated 15% structural damage after hydroplaning and skidding away from the landing strip, halting abruptly on the surrounding soil. No casualties or injuries were reported, and it was then repaired by Lockheed Martin Argentina, in Córdoba Province Argentina.

TC-66 refueling in Marambio base, Argentine Antarctica. (FAA)

TC-67

This aircraft was acquired in late 1974, and delivered on the 3rd of March 1975. TC-67 was assigned to the 1st Squadron, Transport Group 1, where it performed Airdrop duties over the Orkney Islands Navy base.

TC-67 taxiing in Puerto Argentino. (Historias Individuales)

It suffered an accident landing at Marambio base, where it severely damaged her nose landing gear on the 23rd of November 1981, and because of this, TC-67 was the only Hercules not to be reported to have been deployed over the Malvinas War Theater. However, pictures of it parked in Puerto Argentino have been found suggesting its use during the conflict.

After attempting to land at the Tandil Airbase on the 16th of May 1996, it skidded off the runway and the subsequent impact caused around 9% of structural and landing gear damage.

Repairing this aircraft proved not to be worth it considering the budgetary restrictions of the Air Force. The wings were sold off to the Pakistani Air Force, and the fuselage was donated to the Malvinas War Museum in Pilar, Buenos Aires Province, where her cargo bay is being used as a cinema. Her engines were salvaged.

TC-68

Perhaps the most interesting specimen of them all, TC-68, was acquired alongside TC-67 and delivered a week after it. Acquired in early March 1975 and delivered on the 10th of March same year, it performed regular transport duties during peace time for the 1st Squadron, Transport Group 1 located in El Palomar AFB.

It was the first Hercules to land at Puerto Argentino and performed an airdrop supply mission over Darwin on the 19th of May 1982.

Using what’s known in Argentina as “Viveza Criolla” or Criollo quick thinking, some field officers decided to modify TC-68 to perform Frontline Bomber duties after performing recon missions over the exclusion zone.

It was first used against the tanker HMS British Wye with relative success, landing two of her bombs on target. However, this is not the mission it is most known for.

Not many were the ships whose captains were brave enough to venture or deliver payload inside the war’s exclusion zone. The ironically named tanker “Hercules” was one of these.

Being a tanker operated by the United States under a Liberian flag, the Hercules was heading towards Ascension Island when it was spotted by an “unidentified military aircraft”. That aircraft was another FAA C-130 which was flying over the area in search of enemy vessels at around 13:00 PM. Captain Bataliari ignored the event, as he identified the plane as being a military cargo plane, and he thought it was likely an RAF or Royal Navy aircraft.

Exactly six minutes later, a pair of planes, consisting of a FAA Canberra MK-62 and a C-130H, were spotted flying in a straight intercept course with the vessel. No one onboard the tanker could believe what they were about to encounter: TC-68 was fitted with a SFON system ,the ground-attack oriented sights available in the IA-58 Pucará; some fielded officers say that this sights may have been extracted not from a damaged Pucará, but from the Canberra, as the jet bomber used the same kind of sights. It also carried a pair of wing mounts, extracted from a damaged Canberra, and loaded with a total of fourteen 250 kg dumb bombs. These were mounted where , regularly, drop tanks were installed.

TC-68 restored with mock-up bombs installed to show how they were installed during the war, as the aircraft today serves as a museum piece. (Aztec Models)

The plane had taken off from Comodoro Rivadavia on the 8th of June 1982 at 10:00 AM, tasked to attack this tanker. The mission was conducted by the pilot of the Hercules, Vice commodore Alberto Vianna.

Vianna recalled the mission:

“The day before, a Boeing (The Air Force’s pair of Boeing 707s were regularly used for recon missions over the islands as well as for troops transport) detected the ship traveling towards where the British fleet was stationed. They (HQ) sent us to intercept it.

When we arrived, the first surprise was that the oil ship was 320 meters long, and the second one was that it was called Hercules!

If I had to say that a Hercules was going to face another Hercules in the middle of the Atlantic, no one would believe me.”

Once encountered, many radio warnings were sent in both Spanish and English over different frequencies to order the ship to change its course, however, the tanker opted to ramp up her speed and escape towards the British fleet.

The order to attack was sent to Vianna. He dived with his Hercules from 1000 ft of altitude, expecting to release his bombs at 150 ft, 550 kph, and at a 45° angle.

The Vice commodore released eight of the fourteen loaded bombs. Four of them impacted the sea without exploding, three then exploded near the port (left side) of the ship, and the last one ricocheted off the ship’s deck and exploded over the sea. Despite the poor accuracy, structural damage was achieved on the ship by the shockwaves.

Illustration of the attack of the Hercules. (Pakistan Defense)

The coup de grâce was given to it by the Canberra flying alongside TC-68, when it dropped her three 500 kg MK-17 bombs over the ship. One of them got stuck in one of the ship’s orlops unexploded. Hercules fled the area towards Rio de Janeiro, while the two planes flew back to mainland Argentina. There, the damage and the impossibility of removing the bomb rendered the ship permanently disabled. Most of the oil was then salvaged. The ship was dragged to Brazilian controlled high seas and the bomb was detonated remotely, sinking it.

TC-68 performed 5 more bombing runs in 5 different missions with relative effectiveness.

Sadly, 27 years later, it was decommissioned and salvaged for parts. Abandoned and engineless, it was left behind as scrap inside the base of El Palomar in March 2009.

TC-68 at her final resting place. (Foro Militar)

However, unlike some other examples, TC-68 had a well-deserved restoration ordered and completed in 2018. It now serves as a museum in said base.

KC-130 TC-69 and KC-130 TC-70

The addition of these tankers to the air fleet proved to offer an invaluable tactical advantage, as the Air Force could now deploy their planes and perform missions at much farther ranges.

Nicknamed today as “Puerto Argentino(TC-69) and BAM Malvinas(TC-70), they were acquired at the same time and delivered with 2 weeks of difference between each other, TC-69 on the 24th of April 1979 and TC-70 on the 10th of May 1979. Both “chanchas” operated under the 1st squadron, Transport Group 1 in El Palomar AFB, and TC-69 was the first aircraft to perform an air refueling mission for the FAA on the 12th of June 1979, refueling a squadron of A-4Cs.

During the Malvinas war, it also performed air refueling missions to different CAPs and Strike groups.

TC-69 after being modernized, having her batteries charged, late December 2021. (Via Pais)

It was sent on the 15th of October 2014 to Waco, Texas, for a full modernization of her avionics and cockpit elements, installing a modernized and all-digital navigation system, new communications equipment, and a new controls system and digital instrumentation. Due to a lack of payment from the Argentine Air Force, the aircraft was retained for some months but later released, as the Argentine Ministry of Defense paid out the debt and modernization duties continued back in her home country. After the main modifications and modernizations ended on the 27th of April 2019, it was presented and delivered to El Palomar AFB once again. Smaller updates and modifications are still ongoing as of the time of writing this article, in her home country and it still is in active service today.

Screenshot of a video captured of TC-70 performing air refueling over San Luis province to a pair of A4AR Fightinghawk, circa 2019. (Foro militar)

TC-70 performed similar duties during peacetime and war time. It is most well known for being the Hercules that refueled the squadrons that performed the attack and sinking of HMS Sheffield, HMS Atlantic Conveyor, and HMS Invincible.

It was the third Hercules to be modernized and the first one to do so fully in FAdeA (Fábrica Argentina de Aviones, Argentine Airplane Factory, the state-owned aircraft manufacturing factory) on 19th of September 2018.

TC-100

Lastly, there is the newest Hercules in the air fleet, TC-100.

Accepted into service in December 1982, it was the technology demonstrator aircraft of the L-100-30 variant for Lockheed. It was then leased by Karu Kinka Airways, a regional southern Argentinian airline that operated solely between Rio Grande in Tierra del Fuego, and Buenos Aires. For legal issues, it received the plate LQ-FAA, then LV-APW (while operated by Karu Kinka), and finally in 1998, TC-100, when it was returned to the FAA. It is the biggest cargo plane at the disposal of the Air Force thanks to her elongated fuselage.

As an interesting side note, it is also the only C-130 to receive a different camouflage compared to her sisters.

TC-100 was initially operated with a white livery with red lines. (Pedro Borsero)

 

It is still being used today, and more recently, performed flights to repatriate Argentine citizens from abroad when international lockdowns were enacted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also took Argentine medics to Cuba and returned home with Cuban medics to help relieve those infected with the virus.

Conclusion

Replacing the venerable, and very dated Junkers Ju 52, the C-130 provided the FAA with many capabilities. Able to operate from some of the harshest conditions in South America, the C-130 has proven to be an invaluable and versatile asset for the Argentine Air Force, acting as a transport plane, refueling aircraft, and even as a long-range frontline bomber.

Specifications (C-130H)

  • CREW: Five (two pilots, one navigator, one flight engineer, and one cargo bay master)
  • CAPACITY:
  1. Troop transport: 92 soldiers, 72 soldiers with full combat load or 64 paratroopers
  2. Medevac: 72 stretchers and 2 Medic crews with full equipment.
  3. Cargo: 6 fully loaded pallets.
  4. Vehicle transport: 2-3 Humvees or 1 M113 APC.
  • MAXIMUM LOAD CAPACITY: 20,000 kg or 44,080 lb.
  • LENGTH: 29.8 m or 97.8 ft.
  • WINGSPAN: 40.4 m or 132.5 ft.
  • HEIGHT: 11.6 m or 38.1 ft.
  • WING AREA SURFACE: 162.1 m2 or 1744.9 ft2.
  • EMPTY WEIGHT: 34,400 kg or 75,817.6 lb.
  • MAX CARGO WEIGHT: 33,000 kg or 72,732 lb.
  • MAX TAKEOFF WEIGHT: 70,300 kg or 154,941.2 lb.
  • ENGINES: 4x Turboprop Allison T56-A-15
  1. Power: 3430 kW (4729 hp; 4664 CV) each.
  • PROPELLER WIDTH: 4.17 m, 13.68 ft
  • MAX SPEED/CRUISE SPEED: 592 km/h at 6060 m. / 540 km/h. 367.85 mph at 19882 ft.
  • RANGE: 2052 nmi
  • MAXIMUM OPERATION CEILING: 10,058 m empty / 7010 m with 19,000 kg of load. 33,000ft  empty, 23,000 with 42,000lbs of load.
  • TAKE OFF DISTANCE: 1093 m with full load, 427 m empty. 3586ft loaded, 1400ft empty.
  • AVIONICS: Meteorological and navigation radar Westinghouse Electric AN/APN-241 (cheesy side note, my father worked with these ones! He’s a radar engineer and operator in the Air Force)

Illustrations

Credits

  • Article written by Wilhelm
  • Edited by  Henry H. & Stan L.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrated by Godzilla

Sources:

https://loudandclearisnotenought.blogspot.com/2011/06/tc-100-lockheed-l-100-30-hercules-cn.html

https://www.jetphotos.com/airline/Karu%20Kinka%20Lineas%20Aereas

https://www.aviacionline.com/2020/08/fotogaleria-los-hercules-de-la-fuerza-aerea-argentina/

https://defensayarmas.blogspot.com/2018/09/probaron-el-kc-130-en-reabastecimiento.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-100_Hercules

https://airlinehistory.co.uk/airline/karu-kinka-lineas-aereas/

https://www.zona-militar.com/2021/12/24/el-ministerio-de-defensa-y-fadea-avanzan-en-la-recuperacion-del-hercules-tc-69/

https://deyseg.com/malvinas/627

https://www.gacetaeronautica.com/gaceta/wp-101/?p=29058

https://loudandclearisnotenought.blogspot.com/2011/06/tc-70-lockheed-kc-130h-hercules-cn-4816.html

https://loudandclearisnotenought.blogspot.com/2011/06/tc-69-lockheed-kc-130h-hercules-cn-4814.html

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#:~:text=El%20KC%2D130H%20TC%2D69,de%20las%20Malvinas%20en%201982.

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/los-locos-de-la-guerra-pilotearon-el-hercules-que-se-volvio-en-una-pesadilla-para-las-tropas-nid01042022/

https://malvinasguerraaerea.blogspot.com/2019/04/el-hercules-bombardero-tc-68-fue-recuperado-del-olvido.html

Lockheed S-3 Viking

United States of America (1975)

Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft; 188 built, 160 upgraded to S-3B

An S-3 Viking comes in to land on the aircraft carrier USS Independence. [National Archives]
The Lockheed S-3 Viking was an anti-submarine warfare aircraft designed to replace the aging S-2 Tracker, later becoming one of the most important components of the US Navy’s anti-submarine strategy during the late Cold War. Designed in anticipation of modern Soviet Nuclear submarines, the Viking could boast of a host of cutting edge sensors and computerization that put it well above the curve, and all wrapped up in an airframe that was reliable and versatile. Its exceptional anti-submarine capabilities were augmented even further during its mid-life improvements which lead to the introduction of the improved S-3B. After the Cold War, the aircraft transitioned away from its traditional anti-submarine duties to surface surveillance, signals intelligence, and aerial tanker duties. A thoroughly reliable and advanced aircraft, the Viking easily ranked among the most important and versatile aircraft to ever serve aboard US carriers.

The Modern Submarine

The submarine of the Second World War was little more than a long range torpedo boat with the ability to submerge itself for short periods of time to avoid detection. Its offensive capabilities were rather modest, and apart from some outlying, but considerable, success against warships, it was typically seen as a tool for disrupting overseas shipping. Their comparatively low speed coupled with the need to transit on the surface for long periods, which snorkels could not entirely eliminate, would see them become a supporting vessel of most navies. However, advancements near the end of the war would transform the submarine from a raider and reconnaissance vessel, to one of naval warfare’s principal combatants.

Owing to the extreme desperation of the German U-boat force, a submarine built along new, revolutionary lines was designed. As the surface proved an exceptionally dangerous place to be, due to long range Allied patrol aircraft, the new boat would be designed to operate almost entirely submerged for the duration of its patrols. The new Type XXI was designed around the most modern features of any submarine thus built, featuring a much improved pressure hull construction, partially-automatic torpedo loading, a powerful sonar array, and a massive battery capacity which, combined with a hydrodynamically clean hull, allowed it to travel at double the speed of a conventional Type VIIC with over three times the range.

A Type XXI submarine ready to be assembled from prefabricated sections. Massive quality control problems prevented any hope of the submarine’s use in the Second World War, though this construction process was improved post-war world wide. [national archives]
The Type XXI only completed a single wartime patrol, but its effects on naval engineering and submarine design were dramatic. In effect, every submarine built before it was obsolete, effectively restarting a new naval arms race. In the context of the then brewing Cold War, this was the cause of no shortage of anxiety for Western Navies. While the Soviet Union’s shipbuilding capabilities were relatively meager, and greatly damaged during the war, their experience with the new German submarine could very well allow them to leap up to the position of the world’s most prominent navies, if only in the field of submarine design.

In addition to the new submarine’s capabilities, the Type XXI also demonstrated that submarines could also be built at an unheard of rate thanks to its modular construction. Submarine sections could be constructed at secondary factories before being shipped to main construction yards, where they would be assembled into completed boats. Initially, an intelligence survey estimated that the Soviet Union could have as many as 2000 modern diesel-electric submarines in 1960. However, a much more reasonable secondary survey noted that they were likely restricted to 400 boats, owing to available dockyard space, fuel, and bottlenecks in battery maintenance and production. Regardless, the US Navy began work on a modernized anti-submarine strategy to counter a potential flood of Soviet boats which could threaten intercontinental supply lines in a potential war.

The first Whiskey class submarines were only marginal improvements on their WWII era predecessors. Late models, pictured here, had snorkels and performance somewhat below the German Type XXI, but with hundreds made in a relatively short time, their numbers helped offset these deficiencies. [US Navy]
The first of the new Soviet boats was the Project 613 ‘Whiskey’, a somewhat shrunken derivative of the German Type XXI. It had more modest performance than the German boat in regards to speed, range, and endurance, but once it received a snorkel on later models, it had the same ability to remain underwater for long periods. The Whiskey was thus the most advanced submarine the Soviet Union had yet built. In countering these submarines, the US Navy would employ a modified version of the same strategy it had used in the Second World War. The primary anti-submarine weapon was to remain the airplane, in the form of long range patrol aircraft, like the P-2 Neptune, and carrier based planes, like the new models of TBM-3 Avenger. Their primary means of locating submarines were radar, which could detect snorkeling submarines, magnetic anomaly detectors, which were set off by a submarine’s magnetic signature, and sonobuoys, which determine the position of a transiting submarine if dropped close enough. Radar was the main means of detecting a submarine at range, with the other two systems being used to ‘fix’ its location before attacking with torpedoes and depth charges.

Unlike their land based counterparts, early carrier based ASW aircraft lacked the ability to carry both the sensors and weapons needed for the task and were thus placed in a pair of cooperating aircraft. The first such pair were the TBM-3W ‘warning’, for detection, and TBM-3S ‘strike’, for carrying out attacks on marked submarines. These hunter-killer teams operated aboard modified escort carriers and later switched to fleet carriers, when it became clear the small escort carriers could not reliably launch and recover the larger hunter-killers. In the early 50s, it was recognized that the entire system was extremely clumsy and would not provide adequate anti-submarine support.

The Hunter-Seeker ASW method proved far too unwieldy for further use. This ‘hunter’ Grumman Guardian has a search radar on one wing and a high powered searchlight under the other. Its torpedo was stored internally. These were the largest single engine piston aircraft in service at the time of their introduction. (US navy)

The CVS program was thus introduced, which brought several mothballed WWII era-fleet carriers back into service as dedicated anti-submarine warfare ships. The CVS’s, which were introduced in 1952, were soon joined by the S-2 Tracker two years after. The Tracker was large enough to carry both the sensors and the weapons, and the clumsy hunter-killers were finally dispensed with. The S-2 was an excellent ASW aircraft which would go on to serve in a number of roles, though by the mid 60s, the growing capabilities of Soviet submarines and operational troubles with operating a piston engined aircraft on increasingly jet dominated carriers began to highlight the need for a replacement.

The Soviet Nuclear Submarine

Through the 50s and early sixties, the existing strategies for sub hunting were predicated on the need for submarines to recharge their batteries, and that said batteries could be discharged during a drawn out search, thus rendering the submarine helpless. Advancements in Soviet nuclear engineering would end up negating most of these existing strategies. General Secretary Iosif Stalin would formally sign off on the program to build the first Soviet nuclear submarine in 1952. The boat was to be a delivery platform for a gigantic nuclear torpedo for use against harbors. It was completely impractical, and due to the extreme secrecy surrounding it, was rejected by Soviet Admiral Kuzntetsov upon learning of it. The Project 672 Kit (NATO reporting sign November) was then given a conventional torpedo armament and went out to sea in 1958. It was a fast boat, with a given maximum speed of 28 kts, but its turbines proved unreliable and its reactor developed leaks after 800 hours. Less concerning was its noisiness, a factor Soviet submarine designers felt was less important than top speed, and a design choice that would plague Soviet nuclear submarines into the 1970s.

The nuclear submarine was a far more capable and deadly opponent compared to its diesel electric counterparts. Without needing to rely on electric power for underwater propulsion, a nuclear submarine was not restricted to a small patrol area, nor did it need to expose itself to detection to recharge. Furthermore, it was fast. As loud as the Novembers were, they were nearly twice as fast as contemporary diesel electric submarines. Lastly, their larger size enabled them to carry larger, more sensitive sonar systems and greater complements of weapons. In short, it was a faster, more alert, and better armed threat than anything the US Navy ever had to contend with.

The Novembers proved to be a wake up call to the US Navy, but their operational restrictions kept them from being perceived as a massive threat. For instance, they were not deployed to the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis, as the distance was deemed a hazard. The turbines aboard these boats were unreliable, and there was no wish to have their most advanced submarine being seen under tow. Subsequent developments would however be a more considerable concern to the US surface fleet. General Secretary Nikita Kruschev’s plan for the Soviet Navy was to be one that was capable of defending its own coasts using light warships armed with anti-ship missiles, and submarines which could stalk shipping lanes for enemy vessels. As opposed to Stalin’s views, Kruschev’s plan heavily favored the development of cruise missiles and submarines over a balanced fleet, and largely handicapped the development of larger warships.

The torpedo shaped November class was a massive, if clumsy, step forward for the Soviet Navy. While unreliability and loud acoustic emissions plagued these boats, they showed the promise of nuclear submarines to future Soviet naval planners. [US Navy]
The immediate products of this philosophy were the Echo class nuclear submarines, and to a lesser extent, the conventional Juliet class. These new boats carried heavy, anti-ship cruise missiles and were initially considered a serious threat to US carriers. They were not, however, without serious limitations. They required cooperating patrol planes to share radar data for over the horizon targets, and needed to stay on the surface for up to thirty minutes before carrying out the attack with their long range missiles. They were accordingly extremely vulnerable when operating in areas without a substantial Soviet air presence. The more advanced Charlie class materialized after Kruschev’s fall, and was capable of submerged launches, but of slower and short ranged missiles. With Kruschev gone, the Soviet Navy largely abandoned any plans of Atlantic convoy raiding to pursue building better defenses against American Polaris missile subs, and later to focus on denying potential enemies access to bastions where their own SSBNs patrolled. Largely under Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov’s direction, the Soviet fleet would try to right itself to become a more balanced force, so that it might better assist Soviet foreign policy, and to build up a defense against wartime incursions from enemy aircraft carriers and modern nuclear submarines.

In spite of the limitations of the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet of the sixties, their growing capabilities would prompt the US into developing their anti-submarine forces even further. Throughout the sixties, new aircraft ASW tactics were employed to replace the old snorkel-chasing methods. A greater focus was placed on the use of sonobuoys, which could be used to survey larger patrol areas, and the newer versions of which were growing ever more sensitive and sophisticated. Greater coordination with surface vessels was also employed, with newer destroyers and frigates mounting considerably more powerful sonar systems. Overall, US nuclear subs would take up an ever more important role in anti-submarine warfare, massive new hydrophone lines were laid in strategically important areas, and the aircraft carrier was soon to take a primary position in anti-submarine strategy.

Viking

In the world of the nuclear submarine and the jet carrier air group, the S-2 Tracker was becoming an ever more inconvenient asset. As carriers began to carry an ever greater number of jet aircraft, there was some frustration with having to still carry stores of aviation gasoline for the S-2s. The situation was not improved by the retirement of the WWII era converted CVS, which would be entirely out of service by the early 1970s. As a result, the entire surface ASW framework was to be restructured. Among the earliest moves was to announce a competition for the S-2 replacement in 1964, under the designation VSX. The new plane was required to have at least twice the speed, twice the range, and twice the ceiling of the aging Tracker. Lockheed was among the most promising entrants due to their previous history in designing maritime patrol aircraft, though their lack of experience with carrier based aircraft saw them partner with LTV Aviation, and the new ASW gear was to be designed by Univac Federal Systems.

A wooden mockup of Lockheed’s entry into the VSX competition. [US Navy]
Lockheed’s Viking was a robust, high wing aircraft which featured a pair of turbofan engines for their power and fuel economy. The plane also carried nearly every modern airborne submarine detection system of the time. Its four crewmen operated the aircraft’s systems in coordination with a central, general purpose digital computer, which greatly aided the crew in processing the information gathered by the aircraft’s sensors. Further crew integration was accomplished through the use of multi-purpose displays that could show information from any of the aircraft’s crew positions. In addition to the MAD, radar, and sonobuoy systems, the plane was equipped with a FLIR system mounted to an extendable turret which was capable of detecting snorkeling, or near surface submarines and sea mines. To complement its sensors, the aircraft had a maximum speed of approximately 429 kts, a ceiling of 40,000 ft, and a maximum endurance of over six hours. Of the entries from Grumman, General Dynamics, and Convair, Lockheed’s design won out.

They were formally awarded the contract in 1969. The first of eight YS-3A prototype and pre production aircraft flew only three years after the contract was finalized in 1972, with the aircraft entering service two years later. This program was also the first to have a formalized set of milestones to ensure costs were kept low and technical risks were reduced. All program milestones were met ahead of schedule, and the plane was prototyped, built, and delivered in quantity in only five years. Their carriers too were modified to better suit ASW operations. In 1971, the USS Saratoga was the first to receive an ASW analysis center and support shops for ASW gear and weapons. All carriers but the older, smaller Midway class were able to receive the improvements. Prior to the introduction of the Viking, carriers operated S-2’s, with the introduction of the new aircraft vastly improving the anti-submarine capabilities of US carrier battle groups. The plane could perform an ASW search quickly at 35,000 feet at a speed of over 300 kts, a massive improvement over the S-2’s 135 kts at 10,000 ft. Even before considering the massive improvements in sensors and the centralized computer integration, the Viking could patrol truly massive stretches of ocean for a plane of its size. With a payload of four lightweight torpedoes and 60 sonobuoys, the Viking could fly out 826 nmi from its carrier, and conduct a two hour search before having to return. The use of external stores and airborne tankers could push this already phenomenal range out even further.

The unified CV concept brought together the anti-submarine and surface distinctions, as the old sub-hunting legacy carriers began to be decommissioned. The carrier’s air wing was tailored to its deployment goals. [US Navy]
VS-21, the first S-3A squadron, was deployed aboard the USS John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the summer of 1975. During its Mediterranean deployment, the Kennedy was able to truly demonstrate the universal carrier concept. Previously, carriers were divided between the CVS, sub hunting carriers, and the CVA’s, which hunted everything else. The introduction of the Viking enabled the consolidation of all US carriers into CV’s, the new concept seeing carriers equipped for every conceivable mission. However, the S-3A was not the only newcomer to the ASW mission. The year prior to its first deployment saw the introduction of the Kaman Sh-2F Seasprite. This light anti-submarine helicopter would soon be found aboard most US warships, extending both their maximum search and offensive ranges. In short, the US surface fleet’s ASW capabilities had been thoroughly improved through the adoption of these two aircraft, well in advance of the predicted improvements in Soviet nuclear submarines.

An A-6 Intruder and S-3A Viking overfly a surfaced Project 641 ‘Foxtrot’ class submarine. These boats had improved fire control and sensors over the older Whiskey and Zulu class boats, but were otherwise built along the same post-WWII lines. Significant improvements in regards to quieting and hull form would not be achieved until the later Project 641B ‘Tango’. [US Navy]
In service, the S-3A was primarily a screening element for the carrier group and any surface groups it might be supporting. A US carrier group is typically deployed alongside independent surface action groups and nuclear submarines, these often being the outermost defenses for the carrier group. The carrier’s offensive range and ability to survey thousands of miles of ocean make it the center of naval operations, and the most well defended asset. It was the job of the outer forces to screen the path and potential approaches to the carrier from enemy submarines, and to a lesser extent surface ships, though those more often fell under the purview of other aircraft and vessels.

Given the distance between these forces, gaps inevitably form, and these areas are typically patrolled by aircraft. In wartime, the Viking could quickly fly out to these locations and deploy a grid of sonobuoys, which it could maintain for several hours before being relieved by other aircraft. In addition to screening the path of the carrier, the S-3A could also be tasked to patrol the open ocean to search for older cruise missile submarines, which had to surface for long periods to fire their weapons. The S-3 would eventually receive Harpoons for this role, but initially, it would carry Hydra 2.75 inch rockets or unguided bombs. By the late 70s, these submarine ‘Shaddock’ missiles were easily defeated by the new EW systems and defensive weapons added to destroyers, cruisers, and carriers, but they still posed a threat to lighter warships and shipping. In addition to open ocean patrols and barrier searches, the Vikings could be quickly dispatched to support patrolling frigates and destroyers which were tracking submarines.

While the Victor class boats were primarily designed around the anti-submarine mission, they could fire salvos of two heavy weight, long range Type 65 torpedoes for use against large surface groups. The boat first entered service in 1977 and represented a major success in achieving low acoustic emissions in Soviet submarine design. [US Navy]
Though the Soviet fleet consisted of a large number of these older submarine classes, new models of Soviet nuclear submarines would pose a greater challenge. A change in design philosophy would see a shift in focus away from achieving the best possible speed, to a balanced approach which placed greater importance on lower acoustic emissions. When commissioned in 1974, K-387, a Project 617RT ‘Victor II’, was the first Soviet nuclear submarine to incorporate rafted equipment. With its turbines suspended on vibration dampening mounts and its hull clad in anechoic rubber tiles, it was remarkably quieter than its forebearers. Further improvements to this class resulted in the Project 617RTM ‘Victor III’, with the first boat being commissioned in 1978. However, sound reduction was only marginally improved, with much of the focus being placed on new sensors, with the main mission for the sub being ASW. With 48 total Victors of all classes being produced, it represented the modern workhorse of the Soviet submarine force. More concerning to the carrier, however, were the successors to the Echo and Charlie class SSGN. The Project 949 ‘Oscar’ was a massive vessel which carried 24 P-700 ‘Shipwreck’ missiles, three times as many missiles as the Echo. Capable of submerged launches and engaging surface targets at long range, the Oscar lacked the handicaps of the earlier boats, and its state-of-the-art missiles boasted high speed and countermeasure resistance. A single Oscar could put the air defenses of a carrier battle group to the test, and thus long range anti-submarine screening became key for naval planners. The character of the Soviet submarine force of the eighties was rather peculiar, being composed mostly of obsolete to somewhat up to date vessels, but with a small and growing pool of cutting edge submarines.

Vikings among A-7 Corsair II and A-6 Intruder strike aircraft aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1980. [National Archives]
These ever-advanced models of Soviet submarines were anticipated and largely matched by the US Navy’s efforts to build a defense against them. All new warships possessed powerful new sonar systems and light ASW helicopters, and the carrier based S-3A sat at the center of fleet-wide anti-submarine strategy.

Into the 80s

While the S-3A proved an incredible new addition to the fleet, it soon encountered an unexpected challenge. As a result of the post-Vietnam defense cuts, the spare parts program for the Viking was among the worst affected. Stocks of replacement parts began to grow tight by 1977, though they would not pose a serious issue until the turn of the decade. As a result of stricter rationing of components, the mission readiness level of the Viking squadrons often fell to below 40% in 1981. However, the problem was soon identified and the procurement of more replacement parts began the following year, along with a new series of maintenance programs to increase readiness. Thanks to these efforts, the mission readiness of these squadrons climbed to 60% in 1983 and rose to 80% in the coming years, the highest in the fleet.

While the Navy was procuring additional parts, they also initiated a program to drastically improve the offensive and sensor capabilities of the aircraft. The Weapon Systems Improvement Program would seek to prepare the S-3 Viking for its service into the new millennium. Most of these improvements were focused around the aircraft’s sensor systems, most notably its new inverse synthetic aperture radar, which boasted a much higher capability in regards to periscope and snorkel detection, and its acoustic sensor suite. The acoustic data processor was improved through the use of a standardized naval signal processor which ran on a software shared among new naval maritime patrol aircraft, a new sonobuoy receiver boosted the available channels from 31 to 99, and it received a new, more reliable tape recorder for storing gathered acoustic data.

An S-3 passes a Kilo class submarine. While much of the Soviet diesel-boat fleet consisted mostly of obsolete classes like the Foxtrot and Romeo into the 1980s, the Kilo was thoroughly modern. [The Drive]
In addition to its sensor improvements, the Viking received the new ALE-39 countermeasure system, and its electronic support measures were improved to allow better classification of contacts by their radar and radio emissions. Lastly, it finally received the capability to utilize the AGM-84 Harpoon missile, with the pair of missiles being mounted on the outer hardpoints. With a range of approximately 75 nmi’s, the sea skimming Harpoon could prove very difficult to detect and shoot down. As more effective air defenses against sea skimming missiles would not become widespread for almost a decade, the inclusion of this weapon would make the Viking a considerable anti-surface asset, along with its already impressive anti-submarine capabilities.

The sum of these upgrades would end up seeing the modified aircraft identified as S-3B’s, as squadrons began to receive the improvements in 1984. In addition to these upgrades and after the parts shortage, the scope of duties for the aircraft began to grow over the years. Among the first new tasks assigned to the Viking was to act as an airborne tanker. The long endurance of the aircraft, coupled with its incredibly fuel efficient turbofan engines, made it extremely capable in the new role. Carrying ‘buddy stores’, the S-3 could increase the range and endurance of cooperating carrier-borne aircraft in a much more efficient manner than the Ka-6d tanker, or a fighter or strike aircraft carrying the fuel tank and drogue system.

As the 1980s drew on, the Navy began to push the operational limits of the aircraft out ever further, and to great success. The S-3 took on the aerial mining mission, and during the Northern Wedding and United Effort exercises of 1982 and 1983, the operational search range of the Viking was pushed out to 1000 nmi with the use of airborne tankers. Even more noteworthy, they were able to detect and track submarines at that range during the exercise. While the S-3 Viking was initially introduced to serve a single, and very specialized purpose, the aircraft would end up proving extremely versatile and provided a number of new services to the carrier fleet, far beyond the expectations of its designers.

Operation Desert Storm and Late Career

An S-3B tanker launches from the deck of the USS Nimitz. [National Archives]
As the Cold War came to a close, events in the Middle East soon culminated in the largest armed conflict since the end of the Vietnam war. As Iraq invaded the neighboring country of Kuwait over oil disputes, a coalition was built among Arab and Western militaries to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait and deal a serious blow to Saddam’s forces. Along with a massive USAF contingent, the US Navy would deploy six aircraft carriers in order to dislodge the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Of the force, USS Kennedy, Saratoga, America, Ranger, and Roosevelt carried embarked squadrons of S-3B’s. USS Midway lacked a squadron of Vikings, as it did not possess an ASW analysis center.

A total of 43 Vikings would be active across these carriers by February 1991, where they would serve in a number of roles. Ironically, due to Iraq’s lack of a submarine force, ASW was not a role they performed during this conflict. These aircraft flew a total of 1,674 sorties between January 17 and February 28, 1991. The majority, with 1043 flights, were aerial refueling missions supporting other coalition aircraft. However, they also flew a number of reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and several surface air combat patrol sorties, these numbering 263, 101, and 20, respectively. The rest of their flights were categorized as unspecified support missions, or ‘other’.

Apart from aerial tanker duties, these Vikings flew most of their patrols to survey the Persian gulf, in order to track what few warships Iraq had, and to mark the location of mines. Some Vikings were also involved in the search for Iraq’s short range Scud ballistic missiles, a great fear at the time being that some of them may have carried chemical weapons payloads. They also performed a number of unorthodox tasks. For instance, the US carrier air groups could not electronically receive their daily air tasking orders from the coalition headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Their solution was to dispatch an S-3B to pick them up on a near daily basis. Among the most imaginative uses of the aircraft was in delivering photos from carrier based reconnaissance services to units fighting on the ground. This was done by placing the photos in an empty sonobuoy tube and parachuting them to units. One Viking also sank an unidentified class of Iraqi patrol ship on February 20, 1991, after dropping three unguided mk82 bombs on it. Offensive patrols were comparatively restricted and were conducted in areas with limited anti-aircraft threats.

A long exposure shot of deck crew preparing an S-3B on the USS Truman during Operation Desert Shield. [National Archives]
After the end of the war in the Gulf, the S-3B was used for continued surveillance of the area and to uphold the sanctions on Iraq during Operation Desert Shield. It likewise performed similar support roles in the numerous NATO air operations over the former Yugoslavia. Their roles during those conflicts were almost entirely restricted to airborne tanker duties, though a number of Vikings, including a specialized ELINT model, performed signals intelligence missions.

As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the global submarine threat to the US Navy declined to almost nothing, and thus the Viking squadrons transitioned from anti-submarine, to surface control units to better represent their more multipurpose role. They would eventually discard their ASW equipment, with the anti-submarine mission being made the purview of the US submarine fleet and long range maritime patrol squadrons. Several new upgrades were initiated during the turn of the millennium, mostly in regards to new avionics and improvements to carrier landing aids. They would also include the Maverick Plus upgrade, which would enable the S-3B to use IR guided models of the AGM 65 missile, and the AGM-84H family of ground attack missiles. However, after the KA-6D left the service in the late 90s, the Viking would become the fleet’s primary aerial tanker.

The last major operation where the Vikings saw use was during the later invasion of Iraq, during which they primarily acted as tankers. There were, however, some strikes carried out by S-3Bs using the new Maverick Plus system, but these were comparatively rare. As the 2000’s came to a close and the US carrier force wished to divest itself of all but the most essential airframes, the Viking had fully left the service by 2010. The fleet was thus without a dedicated aerial tanker, and instead employed F/A-18s carrying ‘buddy stores’ to refuel other fighters.

Perhaps its later most publicized use was in delivering President George H.W. Bush aboard the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln after the invasion of Iraq. There, he delivered an address to the nation regarding the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in front of the long derided banner which simply read ‘Mission Accomplished’.

NASA

While the Viking’s military career came to a close, a number of aircraft were transferred to NASA as test aircraft in 2004. One of these planes was further developed into a dedicated testing platform in 2006 and was subsequently demilitarized. Most of the existing avionics were replaced with more contemporary civilian equipment and provisions for adding experimental equipment were installed. The Viking was given the civil air registration code N601NA and would see heavy use by the administration for the next 15 years, with the remaining Vikings being used for ground testing.

The NASA Viking proved to be an ideal platform to run a variety of experiments that required steady, precise flying at low speeds. [aionline]
The plane was used for a variety of missions regarding aeronautic safety, aerodynamic studies, and Earth studies. Operating out of the Glenn research center, the plane tested engine icing under harsh conditions, flew communication equipment tests over much of the US to determine FAA guidelines for unmanned aircraft, and flew over the Great Lakes to study algal blooms. This Viking was the last airworthy example of the entire line, and was finally retired in July of 2021. NASA has since donated the plane to the San Diego Air and Space Museum.

Operating Characteristics

The high and broad wings of the Viking presented good low speed flight characteristics and high maneuverability. This was also aided by the lateral control system of the aircraft, which consisted of a set of small outboard ailerons, a pair of spoilers above the wing and one on the underside, and a leading edge flap. Pilots in both the Navy and NASA test programs praised the responsiveness and stability these systems provided. This ability was well valued during low altitude MAD searches and during low level communications testing for NASA and the FAA. However, at higher speeds, pilots needed to be aware of a degree of oversensitivity, as the aircraft did not possess a fly by wire system.

A view of a carrier flight deck from the cockpit of a Viking. [The Drive]
The Viking had an extremely high carrier boarding rating thanks to its dynamic lift system, which in combination with the spoilers, gave the pilot a high degree of control during their final approach. The slow descent of the aircraft also permitted both the pilot and the LSO considerable time to make alterations. This is not to say this was a simple affair, as the aircraft was fairly sensitive to the air disturbance that forms immediately behind the moving carrier, and thus the pilot is still required to make the approach with caution. The engines had to be practically idled on the glide slope, and still often felt overpowered. The DLC system was essential, though the flaps were not, with many recoveries being flap up. Getting off the carrier was a far easier affair, as the aircraft only had a speed requirement of 120 kts under a normal load. Off wind catapult launches were made easily and some pilot and ground crew would remark that the Viking seemed like it could just fly off on its own. In both launching and recovery, the aircraft was remarked to handle well under poor conditions.

The addition of an APU in this aircraft greatly simplified and accelerated the start up procedure, as it did not require the pilot to request external power from the deck crew. A relatively simple start up enabled the aircraft to be ready some 15 to 20 minutes before its scheduled launch, and helped in speeding up the turn-over in deck operations. The only inconvenience the aircraft presented was that its low mounted engines were considerably quieter than most other embarked aircraft, meaning ground crew needed to pay particular attention to these aircraft as they moved across the deck. In short, the S-3 was very well suited to carrier operations.

A technician checks over the TACCO’s multipurpose display on an S-3B. The displays at each station were of slightly different dimensions. The TACCO station’s monitor was enlarged on the B model of the aircraft. [National Archives]
A high level of crew cooperation was possible on the Viking thanks to the centralized nature of its avionics, sensors, and weapon systems. In managing all of these functions through its central computer, most crew functions were visible across all stations and, in some cases, could actually be managed between them. This was primarily achieved through the multipurpose displays at each station, which allowed crewmembers to share information. This made the SENSO and TACCO stations far more capable than they were on other aircraft, allowing for some division and management of the workload. The TACCO position likewise possessed a high degree of integration with the pilot and copilot, and in certain autopilot modes, could guide the aircraft to the weapon release point. All stations effectively had a high degree of situational awareness outside the aircraft, as the multipurpose displays could be set to show various airborne, surface, and subsurface contacts relative to their positions from the aircraft. The computer system itself proved fairly easy to manage, and designed with self-maintenance in mind. In the event of a system error, the computer could run a diagnostic and be reset in flight. Thanks to this level of digital integration, the Viking was viewed as being as capable as a number of patrol aircraft with significantly larger crews.

In the submarine hunting role, the Viking was in no shortage of equipment. The primary means of conducting an anti-submarine search were its sonobuoys. The aircraft carried a variety of these devices, which allowed for passive listening, or actively sending out an echolocating ping which revealed the positions of nearby submarines. These were often arrayed out in a grid like pattern in an aircraft’s patrol area to allow for the surveillance of a much larger area. They were typically dropped in line-like, or triangular patterns when used to try and get an accurate fix on the submarine’s location. Through acoustic analysis, the Viking was able classify submarine contacts by comparing them to existing sound profiles and was capable of gathering new profiles on vessels which had not yet had one compiled. Sonobuoys were usually dropped from the aircraft’s cruising altitude of 35,000 ft, though often from lower altitudes when a contact had been found and a finer pattern of the devices needed to be sown. The sonobuoy system was the first of its kind capable of accurately pinpointing the position of each device.

Sonobuoys provided a screen through which a transiting submarine could be detected, though they were not used for basic open ocean searches. The limited effective range of the individual devices meant that they were used for screening areas ahead of surface groups, filling gaps between other patrol areas, and investigating contacts that were beyond the range of other warships. The aircraft could hand off its sonobuoys to other aircraft from a shared channel, and could receive information from other, off-aircraft sensor sources through their datalink. Thus, in the submarine hunting role, the aircraft could either be a proactive tool, in performing its own searches, or reactive, in responding to suspicious or identified subsurface contacts from other aircraft and vessels. In concert with more modern anti-submarine assets, like the Spruance class destroyer or underwater hydrophone lines, the Viking could prove an incredible asset well beyond the limitations of its own sensors. The Viking was one of, if not the, best equipped ASW aircraft of the entire Cold War. Designed primarily around countering the threat of nuclear submarines, it would of course prove even more capable against diesel-electric submarines which presented more opportunities for detection.

Carrier deck crew load a sonobuoy into the aircraft’s external chutes. Viking’s could carry passive, active, dual purpose, oceanographic, and search and rescue beacon buoys. [National Archives]
In conjunction with sonobuoys, the aircraft possessed its radar, FLIR optics, and a magnetic anomaly detector. The radar of the aircraft was designed to detect periscopes and snorkels deployed by near surface submarines. The key was to look for contacts that either appeared or disappeared from the scope without explanation, and was otherwise a very straight forward system. The FLIR sensor was used to detect heat sources, and in the submarine hunting mission, was used to spot submarines at a shallow depth, and the extended snorkel and exhaust of diesel-electric submarines recharging their batteries. Last was the MAD, which detected the magnetic field of a submarine, which caused slight disruptions in measurements of the earth’s magnetic field, hence the anomaly. This was the only sensor which required the aircraft to fly low, and the limited range of the sensor also meant a contact was typically only revealed if it was overflown. The radar and infrared systems were also important tools in conducting long range surface reconnaissance for the entire fleet. These systems were also necessary in providing targeting data for the Harpoon anti-ship missile.

In employing weapons, the majority of the work was done through the TACCO position. This crewmember assigned weapons to targets, and in coordination with the pilot and copilot/COTAC, delivered them. Originally, this meant he would deploy the Mk.46 lightweight torpedoes and depth charges, with the plane being capable of deploying nuclear models as well. Unguided munitions, typically Zuni rockets, Mk 82 iron bombs, or Mk 20 Rockeye cluster bombs, were the responsibility of the pilot and would have been used against surfaced guided missile submarines, or damaged warships. Later in the aircraft’s career, the TACCO would deploy mines, launch AGM 84 Harpoons, and later operate a variety of air to ground missiles with the introduction of the Maverick Plus upgrade.

The aircraft later excelled as an airborne tanker, where its ability to operate for long periods and at range from the carrier were crucial. The task was relatively simple enough, fly straight ahead while offloading fuel onto another aircraft through a hose and basket fuel transfer line. The asymmetric load of the fuel tank and drogue mount required constant trimming, which grew worse as the tank was drained, but this was a largely simple job the plane was well suited for.

Construction

A general diagram of the S-3B. [S-3B manual]
The S-3 was a high wing, twin engine, carrier based anti-submarine aircraft. It possessed a very durable semi-monocoque airframe with three folding flight surfaces, being the wings and the vertical stabilizer. The fuselage was wide enough to permit the fitting of a considerable set of ASW gear, and an internal weapons bay. The general construction of the aircraft was fairly conventional in comparison to other carrier based aircraft. Lockheed was the primary contractor for the aircraft,  with LTV building the wings, engine pods, tail assembly, and landing gear, while Univac provided the digital computer and some of the avionics.

The nose of the aircraft contained the radar, followed by the cockpit which seated the pilot and copilot, behind them were the weapons and sensor operators. Aft of the crew sat the forward avionics bay, which itself was over the internal weapons bay, and to the rear of it all was the MAD boom and rear avionics bay. On the underside of the aircraft were the sonobuoy shoots, which in addition to the 48 outer slots, held additional internal stores for 12 more devices. All critical systems had redundancy built in.

The landing gear, and catapult launch bar, were derived from those of the LTV F-8 Crusader and A-7 Crusader II. These consisted of a forward, upward retracting gear and two rear landing gear which retracted inward toward the fuselage. These are hydraulically actuated, though in an emergency, they could be extended by bypassing the hydraulics and letting gravity, and a leaf spring to force the gears into the extended position.

The wings of the aircraft were designed to permit a high degree of control and stability at both low and high speeds at low engine power, up to the maximum permitted speed of 429 kts. These were mounted high on the fuselage and possessed a high aspect ratio of 7.73 and a rearward sweep of 15 degrees. The wings consisted of an outer panel, which could fold inward, and an inner panel, roughly a third the length of the outer panel, which contained a fuel tank, and supported an engine nacelle and a pylon which could fit external fuel or weapons. The tall vertical stabilizer also folded down and to the port side to permit the aircraft to fit the carrier’s hangar doors. The extendable airborne refuel probe was stored just ahead of the wings.

Spoiler, aileron, and flap deployment diagram. [S-3B Manual]
The Viking possessed an unusual flight control system which combined six large spoilers with a set of small ailerons and a leading edge flap. Lateral control was greatly aided by the inclusion of the spoilers in combination with the leading edge flap, which permitted effective control at very low speeds with low engine power settings. All control surfaces on the aircraft were deflected using hydraulically actuated servos, with an artificial feel system designed to give the pilot an idea of the extent of control surface deflection. These controls did however prove to be somewhat oversensitive at high speed. Overall, the control surfaces were very effective on patrols at low speed, though they could prove rather clumsy in a carrier landing pattern. This was largely due to the overpowered engines, which gave the aircraft a somewhat unorthodox glide slope and its large wings increased its sensitivity to the ‘burble’ air disruption behind the carrier. To compensate for this, the Viking was equipped with a dynamic lift control system which provided 12 degrees of speed brake extension and retraction through the upper spoilers.

The S-3 was powered by a pair of either General Electric T34-GE-2 or T34-GE-400A high bypass turbofan engines. These both produced 9,275 pounds of thrust at sea level, and the former was used only on pre-production aircraft. These engines used a dual-rotor, single stage, front-fan configuration with a bypass ratio of 6.23 to 1. These were divided into four major sections, being the fan, compressor, combustor, and turbine. The fan was driven by the low pressure turbine and produced 85 percent of the engine’s total thrust. The compressor was composed of 14 stages which compressed air prior to the combustion section, and provided the air for the pneumatic systems aboard the aircraft. The combustor section was where the compressed air was mixed with a fuel air mixture and ignited. The resultant flow drove the high and low pressure turbines within their own section, the high pressure turbine being responsible for driving the compressor, and the low, the fan. The air flow continues out the back of the low-pressure turbine to comprise the remainder of the engine’s thrust.

Standard and exploded views of the General Electric T34-GE-400A turbo fan engine. [S-3B Manual]
The aircraft was fitted with a number of surface and subsurface sensors. The Viking originally possessed an AN/APS-116 search radar, which was primarily designed to detect the masts of submarines near the surface, but doubled as a general purpose surface search radar. This was replaced on the S-3B with the APS-137 inverse synthetic aperture radar which was more than twice as effective at detecting low RCS masts and had improved surface search capability. Specifically, it gained the ability to identify surface vessels at long range by comparing radar returns to existing 2D profiles of vessels. The aircraft also carried an AN/ASQ-81 magnetic anomaly detector fitted to an extendable boom at the rear of the aircraft often called the ‘Stinger’. The boom allowed the sensor to be placed farther away from ferrous objects on the aircraft, which might interfere with any measurements taken. They also carried the OR-89 FLIR sensor, it being mounted in an extendable turret on the forward, starboard side of the aircraft. The sensor would display surface and near surface contacts, making it extremely useful in detecting mines, submarines at a shallow depth, and the exhaust of diesel-electric submarines charging their batteries.

The Viking’s FLIR turret in its deployed position. [replane]
What could be considered the primary anti-submarine sensor were the aircraft’s sonobuoys. Up to 60 could be carried in the chutes that sat flush with the outside of the aircraft and internal stowage. The aircraft communicated with minimal signal emissions and was capable of displaying their exact positions. Data from the devices was processed using an OL-82/AYS data processor and, coupled with its original receiver, was initially capable of monitoring 31 buoys. When upgraded, the acoustic data processor incorporated a new standardized UYS-1 signal process which had improved reliability and had parts and software commonality with other ASW platforms. A more advanced sonobuoy reference system, AN/ARS-2, would also boost the number of usable sonobuoy channels from 31 to 99 and an automatic channel scanning capability to search for available RF channels. The last upgrade to this system saw the analogue tape recorder switched from AN/ASH-27 to the AQH-4(V)2, which was both smaller, more reliable, and was compatible with the new UYS-1 signal processor.

The rear two stations of the S-3A Viking. The SENSO’s dual screens allowed him to monitor multiple sonobuoys simultaneously, this information being only partially available to the single screen displays at all of the other positions. [S-3B Manual]
The aircraft’s countermeasures initially came in the form of the AN/ALR-47, a passive sensor which displayed radar emissions from search and track radars. This was later supplemented with the ALE-39, which included countermeasure dispensers. It also received electronic support measures, which allowed it to detect a wider variety of radar emissions to allow it to classify their emitters. In the event of being shot down, the aircraft was equipped with ejection seats. These could be used on the ground while the aircraft was still, and had a preset ejection sequence to prevent any collisions in air.

All of these systems were managed through a single Univac AN/AYK-10 digital computer. The system allowed for a much higher ability to process information compared to the isolated systems in use on virtually all other maritime patrol craft. Additionally, and perhaps much more importantly, it allowed the crewmembers to display information from their own stations to one another through a set of multipurpose display screens at every station. This allowed for the sharing of most sensor data across all four positions, though it was more limited in the case of sonobuoy readouts, as they were half displayed on a secondary screen at the SENSO station. These displays would give crews the ability to coordinate during surface and subsurface searches, and improve planning when preparing to attack. This was particularly valuable to the copilot/COTAC, whose job was to essentially direct the aircraft in achieving its mission. The addition of this system essentially gave them access to every senor and allowed them to work closer with the TACCO when it came time to deploy weapons.

Initially, the Viking could be armed with up to four Mk 46 torpedoes, being either the Mod 1 or Mod 5 NEARTIP during the 1980s. Both types measured 8.5 ft long with a diameter of 12.75 inches, and both carried a 95 lb warhead. The Mod 1 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. The Viking would also receive the new electric Mk 50 torpedo in the early nineties, but it would shortly after transition away from the ASW mission. There were provisions for mounting up to four torpedoes internally from hardpoints rated up to 600 lbs each. The bomb bay could also carry up to four mines and depth charges, or two B57 nuclear depth charges.

Crewmen prepare to load a Mk 46 torpedo aboard an S-3A. [National Archives]
The pair of external hard points could carry a combination of weapons, external fuel tanks, and airborne refueling systems. Initially, this was restricted only to unguided weapons and fuel tanks. Each hardpoint had a mounting capacity of 2,500 lbs and could carry up to three bombs through the use of the TER-7 bomb mount. The S-3B upgrade would allow the aircraft to use the AGM 84 Harpoon and was able to carry two of these sea skimming missiles. The last major upgrade package, which was installed around 2002, included a variety of avionics improvements, and the Maverick Plus system. This allowed the Viking to mount the AGM 65 Maverick, one per hardpoint, and the AGM-84E SLAM. The Maverick was to be used mostly against light shipping, with the SLAM providing stand off capability against ground targets. The SLAM could be guided manually after launch if a guidance pod was installed on one of the outer hardpoints. Both missiles were otherwise supported and targeted through a common display.

The S-3B could use any of the AGM-84’s in the Navy’s arsenal by the time of its introduction. The first of these was the Block 1B introduced in 1982, which had improved radar guidance allowing it to fly at lower altitudes. The subsequent 1C entered service in 1984 and incorporated a denser fuel, which increased its range by five nautical miles out to 80 nmi when launched from sea level, and added an alternate pop-up attack mode. The 1D entered service in 1992, with the lengthened missile possessing a range of 150 nmi and re-engagement capability, which allowed the missile to circle back to its target if it was deceived by chaff or electronic countermeasures on its first pass.

These sea skimming, turbojet powered missiles were exceptionally difficult to detect and intercept during the Cold War and flew at a constant Mach .85. These utilized active radar terminal homing, carried a 510 lb high explosive warhead, and had a flight reliability of over 93 percent.

Conclusion

A Viking prepares to launch after an F-14B Tomcat aboard the USS Nimitz during Operation Southern Watch, 1999. [National Archives]
With the exception of the parts shortage, the Viking can be said to be among the most reliable and versatile tools the US Navy has ever possessed. The aircraft proved a phenomenally capable anti-submarine aircraft, which entered service long before high capability threats entered service in the Soviet Navy. When that particular threat had gone, the plane continued to serve ably, as a tanker, a reconnaissance aircraft, and limited strike aircraft. Finally, the venerable aircraft ended its career as a research aircraft.

S-3A Viking

Specification

Engine T34-GE-400A
Maximum Continuous Engine Output (Maximum) 6,690 lbs (7,365 lbs for 5 minutes)
Combat weight at catapult 44,947 lbs
Gross Weight 36,574 lbs
Empty weight 26,581 lbs
Range [4x Mk.46 60xSonobuoys] 2,506 nmi
Combat radius [4x Mk.46 60xSonobuoys] 826 nmi for 6.9 hours at 346 kts
Maximum speed 429 kts at sea level
Crew Pilot, Copilot/COTAC, TACCO, SENSO
Length (Folded) 53.33 ft (49.42 ft)
Height (Folded) 22.75 ft (15.25 ft)
Wingspan (Folded) 68.67 ft (29.50 ft)
Wing Area 598 sq.ft

S-3 variant

General Description

Number built/converted

YS-3A Prototype/Preproduction 8 built
S-3A ASW Aircraft 180 built
S-3B ASW/ASuW Aircraft 160 converted from S-3A
US-3A Cargo Aircraft 4 converted from YS-3A
KS-3A Airborne Tanker 1 converted from YS-3A
ES-3A ELINT Aircraft 16 converted from S-3A

Viking Squadrons

VS-21 ‘Fighting Redtails’ VS-31 ‘Topcats’
VS-22 ‘Checkmates’ VS-32 ‘Maulers’
VS-24 ‘Scouts’ VS-33 ‘Screwbirds’  
VS-27 ‘Grim Watchdogs’ VS-35 ‘Blue Wolves’
VS-28 ‘Gamblers’ VS-37 ‘Sawbucks’
VS-29 ‘Dragonfires’ VS-38 ‘Red Griffins’
VS-30 ‘Diamondcutters’ VS-41 ‘Shamrocks’

(wikimedia, popular patch)

Credits

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

Illustrations

Gallery

The Viking flying alongside the older S-2 Tracker maritime patrol aircraft. The S-3A rapidly replaced the Tracker from 1974 to 78, when the last Viking left the production line. [jrdavis]
An S-3 is brought up to the flight deck in its stowed condition. The vertical stabilizer folds just below the rudder. [National Archives]
A member of the USS Enterprise’s deck crew warms their hands in a turbine. Taken during the Fleet EX’88 Exercise off the coast of Alaska. [National Archives]
A Viking prepares to launch from USS America. [National Archives]
The evaluation S-3B aircraft passed its final trials in 1985. A rapid upgrade program would begin in 1987. [flight manuals online].
S-3Bs on the crowded deck of the USS John C. Stennis in 2007. [National Archives]
An SH-60 Seahawk comes in to land on the USS Kitty Hawk. [National Archives]
A Sikorsky Sea King comes in to land on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These helicopters and the Sh-60’s represented the inner circle of fleet anti-submarine defense. [National Archive]
 

A Viking, among other aircraft, aboard the USS John F. Kennedy. [National Archives]

An aircraft prepares to take on fuel from an S-3B tanker. Note the missing MAD boom and the covered sonobuoy chutes. [National Archives]
The most publicized use of the Viking. ‘Navy One’ lands on the USS Abraham Lincoln with President George W. Bush aboard to deliver a less than well received speech after the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. [US Navy]
The ES-3 Shadow was an electronic surveillance aircraft which replaced the aging Skywarrior. It saw considerable use during the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia, where it monitored communications and radar emissions. It is easily distinguished by its dorsal equipment fairing [FAS]
A Viking with its MAD ‘stinger’ deployed. [The Drive]

Sources

Primary

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model S-3A Aircraft. Commander of the Naval Air Systems Command. NAVAIR 00-110AS3-1. January 1973.

NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model S-3B Aircraft. Commander of the Naval Air Systems Command. NAVAIR 01-S3AAB-1. September 2000.

NATOPS Weapon System Manual Navy Model S-3B Aircraft. Commander of the Naval Air Systems Command. NAVAIR 01-S3AAB-1.1. December 2002.

Fiscal year 1976 and July-September 1976 transition period authorization for military procurement, research and development, and active duty, selected reserve, and civilian personnel strengths : hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, first session, on S. 920

NASA fiscal year 2010 budget request : hearing before the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session, May 21, 2009.

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.

NASA’s aeronautics R & D program : status and issues : hearing before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, second session, May 1, 2008.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One hundredth Congress, first session on S. 1174.

Department of Defense appropriations for 1985 hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session / Subcommittee on the Department of Defense.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1983 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, on S. 2248.

Secondary

Chambers, Joseph R.. Partners in freedom: contributions of the Langley Research Center to U.S. military aircraft of the 1990’s.

Brown, Ronald J. Humanitarian operations in northern Iraq, 1991: with marines in Operation Provide Comfort.

Knaak, Jerry. A Hunting We Will Go. Naval Aviation News. March-April 1997.

Vikings Sweep the Seas & Viking. Naval Aviation News February 1983.

LSO School and the Paddles’s Profession. Naval Aviation News V70, November-December.

Benjamin, Dick. A Sea Rover for ASW. Naval Aviation News January 1972.

Richman, John P. The Viking at Home in the Fleet. Approach, July 1975.

Francillon, Rene J. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913. Naval Institute Press. 1987.

Polmar, Norman & Moore, Kenneth J. Cold war Submarines The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines. Potomac Books. 2004.

Polmar, Norman. Aircraft Carriers a History of Carrier Aviation and its Influence on World Events Volume II 1946-2005. Potomac Books. 2007.

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 453MW

Yugoslavia flag Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1952)
Experimental Glider – 1 Prototype Built

The experimental Ikarus 453MW glider. [airwar.ru]
Following the end of the Second World War, the newly created Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) initiated a series of experimental aircraft design programs. These were intended for testing and gaining valuable experience in new jet propulsion technologies. From this initial work, an unusual new glider project, designated Ikarus 453MW, would emerge. Little is known about the purpose of this glider and its defined role.

The Unusual Glider

After the war, the once-proud Yugoslavian aviation industry was in ruin. Most of its firms had been either looted or destroyed, and many of the pre-war designers and engineers had been killed by the Germans during their retreat. The Allied bombing of Belgrade also inflicted further damage to the Yugoslavian industry’s infrastructure.  However, as the Yugoslav Partisans began liberating the country, some production facilities were slowly restored, as was the case with Ikarus in late 1944. The initial steps of the revitalization effort of the shattered Yugoslavia aviation industry were undertaken in late 1945 by the newly established Yugoslavian Air Force Command. A series of aircraft design teams were set up with the aim of creating a base for the new air force.

By the early 1950’s the overall situation changed to the extent that the Yugoslavian Army officials were ready to test various new technologies and designs. During this time, the Generalna Direkcija Vazduhoplovne Industrije GDVI (Directorate General of the Aviation Industry) led by Dragoljub Bešlin produced a series of experimental aircraft intended to test new design concepts. In 1952, work on an unusual inverted gull “M” shamed wing design began. The design team was also supported by the engineer Levačić. He was an experienced designer who worked with the British Royal Air Force during the war .

In the 1950s a series of experimental aircraft were produced including (from the left to the right side) Ikarus 452-2, 451M jet aircraft, and two prone-operated aircraft the Ikarus 451 and 232  acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com

The precise reasons for its commissioning and its history are not clear, but it appears that the Yugoslav army officials wanted to test a design that could offer a small and fast ground attack aircraft. When the design was ready, Ikarus was asked to construct the first glider prototype. If the glider design proved to have merit, the next step would be to equip this aircraft with a fully functional jet engine. It was designated the Ikarus 453MW, but it is also sometimes referred to as Р-453MW or GDVI-9. To avoid confusion this article will use the Ikarus 453MW designation. The MW  designation was used as the wings highly resemble these letters.

Technical Characteristics 

The Ikarus 453MW was a single-seat, mixed-construction experimental glider. Its fuselage was made of a metal base covered with metal sheets. The wings and tail assembly were made out of wood. The most noticeable characteristic of this glider was the use of unusual inverted gull m-shaped wings. The inverted gull wing design was used during the war by famous aircraft such as the German Ju 87 Stuka Japanese Aichi B7A and the American F4U Corsair. The Ikarus 453MW wings consisted of four parts. The part where the wings folded down was separated by two round-shaped gondolas. The wings were equipped with flaps and ailerons. The rear tail unit consisted of a simple rudder on the vertical stabilizer and did not have horizontal stabilizers.

The retractable landing gear consisted of four wheels. Two smaller wheels were located inside the fairly large wing gondolas. In the lower part of the fuselage, an additional and larger pair of landing wheels was located.

The cockpit was placed to the front of the central fuselage. The canopy was made of plexiglass but besides that, little is mentioned of the cockpit design.

While the experimental glider was unpowered, if successful it was planned to add two unspecified jet engines inside the wing gondolas.

 

The side and top drawing of the Ikarus 453MW. The wing design while unusual was not used on any other Yugoslavian aircraft design. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs
The Ikarus 453MW had a landing gear consisting of three landing wheels units. Two smaller ones are located in the wing gondolas and one in the central fuselage. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs

Testing and Cancellation of the Project

The Ikarus 453MW prototype was completed and ready for testing by November 1952. On the 28th of November, the first test flight was made by Metodije Bojković. The test flight was undertaken at the Batajnica Airfield near the capital of Belgrade. Unfortunately for all present, an accident occurred. During take-off, the glider veered off the runway. While the pilot was unharmed the glider was damaged and the test flight had to be temporarily postponed.

After repairs were made, additional aerodynamic wind testing was undertaken to test the overall design shape. As these proved satisfying, another test flight was to take place. The Ikarus 453MW was towed up to 3 km of altitude by an Ikarus 213 and then released. While the flight itself was without problems, another accident occurred during landing. After analysis of available data, it was concluded that the pilot was not to blame as he was not properly instructed on how to fly the Ikarus 453MW which had an unusual wing design. Following the second accident, an order was given by the Yugoslav Army officials to cancel the Ikarus 453MW project.

A Nuclear Carrier

Author  N. Đokić (Projektat Jugoslovenskog Strategijskog Bombardera) gives us an interesting reason for the Ikarus 453MW design. It is a generally lesser-known fact, but during this time, the JNA was highly interested in developing nuclear weapons. The JNA’s involvement in Yugoslavian nuclear research development is to this day still not completely clear. This source mentioned that according to some secret JNA documents, the Ikarus 453MW was intended to be an aircraft that could quickly deliver a nuclear warhead to enemy targets. For this reason, the final aircraft was to be able to carry one 2-ton nuclear warhead at a speed of 850 km/h. The operational range was to be some 2,000 km, and the maximum service ceiling was 11,000 meters. In the meantime, a contingent of F-84G jet aircraft was acquired from the United States. As these were capable of carrying nuclear weapons there was no need to further proceed with the Ikarus 453MW project.

Whether there is any truth to the nuclear weapons plans is difficult to determine. The JNA and the Yugoslavian political hierarchy were publicly known to be quite interested in developing nuclear capability. Of course, this would demand a massive amount of resources, highly trained personnel, and well-developed industrial capacity, all of which Yugoslavia simply lacked in these early years of its existence. Its industrial capacity and infrastructure were almost completely destroyed during the war, and it would likely, if at all possible, take decades of commitment and investment to actually build a nuclear weapon. Hypothetically, even if Yugoslavia was able to develop nuclear weapons in the following decades, all research and experience gained on the Ikarus 453 would be outdated by that time. In conclusion, it could not be ruled out that the JNA had overzealous and ambitious plans to test the concept of using a swift aircraft to deliver this weapon. In reality, Yugoslavia simply lacked any means to actually produce such weapons. Despite this, testing this unusual wing design, albeit in a limited manner, at least provided Yugoslav aircraft engineers with additional experience.

Surviving Model

While unfortunately the Ikarus 453MW glider was not preserved, a small model replica is on display at the Nikola Tesla Serbian Aviation Museum near Belgrade.

The Ikarus 453MW wooden replica is located in the Belgrade Aviation Museum. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs

Conclusion

The Ikarus 453MW was quite an interesting design mostly due to its unusual wing shape. Its overall history, especially the trials is somewhat obscure. While the prototype was involved in two accidents, this was not the fault of the design but rather poor communication with the pilot, who was not informed of its flight characteristics.

Specification Ikarus 453MW
Wingspan 7.5 m /  24 ft 7 in
Length 5.85 m / 19 ft 2  in
Height 2.01 m /  6 ft 7 in
Maximum Takeoff Weight 1,720 kg / 3,792lbs
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • None

 

Experimental Ikarus 453MW

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustrated by Carpaticus

Sources:

Aero Spacelines PG-2 Princess Guppy

sweden flag USA (1964)
Oversized Cargo Aircraft – None Built

The slightly smaller PG-3 used eight jet engines and kept the wings off the Princess without changing them too drastically. Here it is seen carrying the S-II stage. [allaboutguppys.com]
The Aero Spacelines PG-2 was an oversize cargo aircraft with an extremely large cargo hold, designed to airlift the first and second stages of the Saturn V rocket from their factories to Cape Canaveral, Florida, for final assembly. To save on costs, the aircraft would use components from existing aircraft, and most interestingly would use several key components from the British Saunders Roe Princess flying boat, hence the nickname “Princess Guppy”. Unfortunately, due to opposition from Congress, and the deterioration of the Princess aircraft, none of the type would be built.

NASA and the Transportation Problem

The S-II stage of the Saturn V. [James Vaughan- Flickr]
The race to the moon in the 1960s between the United States and Soviet Union introduced a number of challenges upon the growing aerospace industry. The task at hand was one of the biggest endeavors in human history, requiring manpower, materials, logistics, training, and calculations never used before to achieve such a tremendous goal. In America, the Apollo program was well underway, composed of the Apollo spacecraft and the massive Saturn V rocket it would be launched from. The Saturn V (at this point called the Saturn C-5), was a multistage launch platform with 3 different stages. Logistically, there was a problem with its design. The Saturn V was meant to be assembled and launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida, but the first and second stages of the rocket were assembled in completely different states. The first stage, S-IC, was assembled in New Orleans by Boeing, while the second stage, S-II, was produced on the opposite end of the country in California by North American Aviation. This created a massive challenge regarding transportation. The two stages were massive in size, each having a diameter of 33 ft (10 m). The first stage had a length of 138 ft (42 m) while the second stage had a length of 83 ft (24.9 m). Transporting these two components was a major issue, as almost nothing could quickly move these to Cape Canaveral. This led to NASA deciding to use an aircraft to transport the 1st and 2nd stages. However, this brought on yet another problem. At the time, no aircraft then in service could carry such a large and ungainly cargo, leading several aircraft companies to propose concept aircrafts to complete such a task. Due to the nature of the challenge, the proposals often were unorthodox in their design to accommodate the large load. One company, however, was formed deliberately to fill NASA’s airlifting needs.

An example of Aero Spacelines’ other work, the Super Guppy. These aircraft would transport the 3rd stage of the Saturn V.

Aero Spacelines was formed in 1960 by Jack M. Conroy with NASA as their main customer in mind. Jack, being a former Air Force and commercial pilot, knew of their transportation issue regarding rocket components even before the Saturn V rocket, beginning with their previous multistage rocket designs. He proposed using modified Boeing 377 Stratocruiser airliners with large overhead cargo holds to carry these rocket components from their manufacturers to their assembly points. The first of his “Guppy” designs as they were called, the Pregnant Guppy, first flew in 1962 and was awarded contract work for NASA as an airlifter. The Pregnant Guppy was still too small, however, to carry the large 1st and 2nd stages of the Saturn V, and so a larger design began to be drawn up. An early study was done with an entirely new fuselage using B-36 wings and control surfaces to save on parts. This design would have a cargo hold with a diameter of 40 ft (12.2 m), allowing it to carry both boosters. Little is known of this design outside of this but it would be quickly changed on January 30th, 1964 when John M. Conroy announced Aero Spacelines would design a new oversized load airlifter based on the Saunders Roe Princess.

The Saunders Roe Princess: A Dead Dream Revived.

The Saunders-Roe Princess in flight. The size of the aircraft is evident in this photo. [Tom Wigley – Flickr]
The Saunders Roe Princess was the biggest flying boat design built in Britain, and the biggest all metal flying boat ever built. Originally designed as an innovative transatlantic passenger liner, it would first fly in August of 1952. However the Princess encountered two major issues. The ten Proteus engines used were underpowered, causing performance to suffer. On a more pressing matter, the Princess found itself being quickly outdated as it was developed. With the arrival of the De Havilland Comet, the world’s first jet powered airliner, in the same year as the Princess, it was quickly shown that piston-engine airliners, let alone floatplanes, was a dying breed of travel. Jet aircraft could fly faster, smoother, and further than piston engine airliners, and the Princess couldn’t find buyers because of this change in the market. In addition, the amount of airfields left in Britain after the Second World War nullified the benefits of flying boats and their lack of need for airfields. A single Princess would be built and tested, with two more being completed, but not flown, when the program was ended. The three Princesses were put into storage, cocooned away in hopes that a buyer would eventually come and save them.

Over the years several interested parties would look at the Princesses but no deal ever came to fruition. The three airframes would sit in storage for a decade (1954-1964) when they came to the attention of Jack M. Conroy. Interestingly, this wouldn’t be the first time the US considered acquiring the three aircraft, as the Navy had once proposed to convert the three into flying nuclear-powered test beds, but this plan never progressed past a few models and drawings. At the time, Conroy was still working on his booster carrier concept using B-36 components, but the large design of the Princess gave him an idea. Instead of the B-36, Conroy had the idea of reusing the same parts from the Princess. The plans were quickly reworked and came to be known as the PG-2 Princess Guppy. The PG-2 would reuse the wings from the Princess but had several enhancements. Instead of using the ten Proteus engines, these would be swapped out for six Rolls-Royce Tyne turboprop engines. The Tyne engines were originally planned for the Princess during its development, but the engines weren’t ready and couldn’t be used by the time the Princess was built. Now a decade later, the engine was fully operational and ready. The wing length would also be stretched to 40 feet (16.2 m), and the cargo hold would have a 38 foot (11.6 m) minimum diameter and a length of 100 feet (30.5 m). This reduction in length would no longer allow the aircraft to carry the S-IC booster. Maximum cargo capacity would be up to 200,000Ib (104,600 Kg). The aircraft would be reworked once again later in 1964 as the PG-3. The PG-3 would be reduced in size to some degree. The Princess wings would no longer be lengthened to save on costs, and the Tyne engines would no longer be used on the PG-3, instead they’d be replaced by jet engines. A total of eight jet engines would be used on this design, with 4 pairs of engines being used on B-52H engine pods. Other than wing design, the rear of the aircraft was also changed, with the fuselage not angling upward and instead being more of a straight point.

Aero Spacelines had full intentions of seeing this project through, and eventually a representative of the company was sent to inspect the three Princesses at their storage facility. However, a terrible revelation was discovered upon inspection. At some point, maintenance on the three Princesses in storage was stopped, and so they were left to rot for nearly a decade. Being near the sea and exposed to the elements, the three aircraft had deteriorated to such an extent they would no longer be usable. With this discovery, Aero Spacelines had to unfortunately cancel the project and the three Princesses were scrapped. Work on a large carrier was halted for Aero Spacelines and they focused on their smaller Super Guppy aircraft instead, which carried the 3rd stage of the Saturn V.

Design

The Aero Spacelines PG-2 concept. Note the modified wings and tail empennage off the Saunders-Roe Princess [allaboutguppys.com]
The Aero Spacelines PG-2 was a large oversized cargo aircraft designed to carry the first and second stages of the Saturn V rocket. To do so, it would have a very large fuselage to accommodate the rocket stages. The aircraft would have an all metal fuselage that was 200ft (61 m) in length. The lower section of the fuselage contained the huge cargo bay for the rocket stages. On the original plan this section had a diameter of 40 feet (16.2 m) but was shortened to 38 feet (11.6 m) on the PG-2. Cargo was loaded into the aircraft by means of a ramp. The cargo bay had a large clamshell door in front of the aircraft. Landing gear was divided into six pairs of wheels on the underside. Two pairs of wheels were closer to the front of the aircraft while the remaining four were towards the rear. The cockpit and crew section was located above the cargo bay in the aircraft. The cockpit itself bears a striking resemblance to the cockpit section of the Douglas C-133. A crew of 3 to 4 was expected for operations. Initially, the wings would be reused from the Convair B-36 bomber. The engines for this version were never specified. On the PG-2, it was decided at this point that the wings of the Saunders-Roe Princess would be used over for the B-36’s. The wings would be lengthened an additional 40 feet in total for stabilization. The Princess’ original ten Proteus engines would be replaced with six Rolls Royce Tyne engines to improve performance. The tail section of the PG-2 would also be reused from the Princess.

The PG-2 would be reworked into the PG-3 design. The overall proportions were diminished to save on labor. The specifications of this version are relatively unknown aside from one or two estimates based on promotional images. The cargo bay was to remain the same in length. The cockpit section and most of the fuselage remain unchanged aside from the rear. The rear of the fuselage no longer tapered upward and instead transitioned straight back into a cone shape. The tail section of the aircraft remained in the same location but was now supported by a large support to accommodate the height difference of the rear of the aircraft. The wings of the PG-3 remove the 40ft (16.2 m) extension off of the Princess wings and keep the original length. The six Tyne engines were removed in favor of eight jet engines. These engines would be paired together in four B-52 engine pods on the wings. The jet engine intended for use isn’t stated but it’s likely they were Pratt and Whitney TF33 engines. Promotional art also depicts the PG-3 having wingtip mounted fuel tanks.

Conclusion

The final result of the transportation issue. The S-IC and S-II boosters would be transported via barge from their factories to assebmly. Here the S-II booster is carried by the barge Poseidon. [Wiki]
With the cancellation of the Princess Guppy, Aero Spacelines moved on to other means to assist NASA regarding transportation, however they weren’t the only company to offer an aircraft design to carry the larger rocket stages. Several other companies had offered proposals to NASA for the same function, such as Convair and Fairchild. Many of these designs reused existing aircraft as their base or for parts to save on costs. None of these would come to fruition either. Despite reusing components from existing aircraft, many members of Congress found building a new aircraft for this role unnecessary for the amount of funding it needed. Instead it was decided that the 1st and 2nd stages would continue to be transported to Cape Canaveral via barge. For the 2nd stage, this was a very long journey that involved going through the Panama Canal to reach Florida. Despite being time consuming, this method was one Congress found cost effective. No oversized aircraft proposals would be built aside from Aero Spacelines’ own Super Guppy design, which was used to transport the 3rd stage of the rocket, and one of which is still in service to this day by NASA.

The Princess Guppy was a well researched design using prior knowledge of Aero Spacelines’ Pregnant Guppy. The design would have brought back to life a decade-old dream but unfortunately it was crushed due to negligence. Had it been built, it would be questionable if the aircraft would even be airworthy. The immense size of the fuselage and the small amount of engines in comparison to said size could have prevented the aircraft from even lifting off. Regardless, none of the types were built.

Variants

  • Early Design (PG-1?) – The first design of the booster carrying aircraft reused components of the Convair B-36 bomber. It would have a large cargo hold to carry the oversized load.
  • PG-2 – Second design of the booster carrier. The PG-2 Princess Guppy would use the modified wings and tail components of the Saunders-Roe Princess and would be powered by six Rolls Royce Tyne engines.
  • PG-3 – Reduced size version to lessen the work needed to build the aircraft. It was powered by 8 jet engines in B-52H engine pods. The Princess’ wing returns to its normal size for this version.

Operators

  • United States of America – The Princess Guppy was designed specifically to be used by NASA for the transport of the first and second stages of the Saturn V rocket. None were be built.

Aero-Spacelines PG-2 specifications

Wingspan 259.8 ft / 79.2 m
Length 200 ft / 61 m
Height 86 ft / 26.2 m
Wing Area 6328 ft² / 587.8 m²
Engine 6 x 4,616 hp (3,442 kW) Rolls Royce Tyne RTy.12 turboprop engines
Propeller 6 x De Havilland 4-blade propellers
Powerplant Ratings
Horsepower output Altitude
Take Off 5730 hp Sea Level
Weights
Useful 250,000 lb / 113398 kg
Minimum Flying Weight 180,000 lb / 81646.6 kg
Maximum Take Off 430,000 lb / 195044.7 kg
Maximum Landing 400,000 lb / 181436.9 kg
Crew 3 to 4

Gallery

Artist Concept of the PG-2 by Godzilla

Credits

  • Written by Medicman
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustrations by Godzilla

Sources

  • COX, G. (2019). AMERICAN SECRET PROJECTS 3 : u.s. airlifters since 1962. Place of publication not identified: CRECY PUB.
  • Keeshen, J. & Hess, A. (2013). Secret US proposals of the Cold War : radical concepts in military aircraft. Manchester North Branch, MN: Crécy Publishing Limited,Distributed in the USA by Specialty Press.
  • https://wightaviationmuseum.org.uk/princess-flying-boat/

Avia S-199 in Israeli Service

Israeli flag Israel (1948-1949)
Fighter – 25 Purchased 

The Avia S-199 was a post Second World War fighter produced in Czechoslovakia. A total of 532 airplanes of different versions were built and used by the Czechoslovenské letectvo (Czechoslovak Air Force) from 1947 to 1955, and 25 planes were used by the Israeli Air Force (IAF) of the newly formed State of Israel between 1948 and 1949.

An Avia S-199 of the Israeli Air Force. Source: m.calcalist.co.il

After the Second World War, the fate of many European Jewish survivors of the Holocaust was bleak. Some returned to their homes across war-ravaged Europe, starting their lives from scratch. Others, who had lost entire families in the concentration camps or had lost everything for the war, decided to move to Palestine to establish the State of Israel.

Many of these, however, were blocked at the border of Palestine by the British, who were worried that the thousands of Jewish migrants could overrun the region. Others still ended up in British camps for displaced persons in Cyprus.

Some World War II veterans of different nationalities, Jewish or not, decided to take matters into their own hands. One such person was Lou Lenart ,who had lost 14 relatives in concentration camps, who wanted to retaliate and help displaced persons by joining the Haganah, an Israeli military organization, and becoming a so-called ‘Mahal’ ,Mitnadvei Hutz LaAretz’ or “volunteer from abroad”. During the Independence War, the Mahal numbered about 3,500 persons from 58 different countries. At the start of the hostilities, of the 18 fighter pilots of the Haganah, 15 were Mahal.

Czechoslovakian Necessity

After World War Two, Czechoslovakia had a shaky democracy dominated by communists, many of whom were of Jewish descent and pro-Zionist, despite discrimination and oppresion of Jewish people by the Soviets.

Czechoslovakia had found itself in possession of a large quantity of German weapons, many of which had been produced under occupation within its borders. Some types remained in production after the war ended with raw materials left in warehouses and factories or surrendered by the Anglo-Americans.
The Czechoslovakian arms stockpile would continue to grow as its soldiers returned, often with foreign supplied weapons.

Czechoslovakia was looking for a way to restore its economy, which was at an all-time low after the German occupation and the destruction caused by the war. Selling weapons was an excellent way to do this.

Mutual Aid

The Czech delegation to the UN voted for a Jewish state only a few months before a communist coup turned Czechoslovakia into a Soviet satellite state. Czechoslovakia then became one of the most important partners in helping arm the Jewish people.

Surplus German and Czech arms from World War II were purchased by the Czechoslovakian government and shipped to Palestine. Not only did they provide light weapons, but the country became a center for all forms of material aid.

While light weapons were important, the Israelis needed tanks and an air force to counter neighbouring Arab armies. All of this aid incurred a huge financial burden for the Czechs. Joseph Stalin allowed support to continue after the Czechoslovak communist coup, not so much as to support the Israelis, but to undermine the British Empire. The first contract was signed on January 14th, 1948 by Jan Masaryk, the Czech foreign minister.

The contract included 200 MG 34 machine guns, 4,500 K98 rifles, and 50,400,000 7.92 x 57 mm Mauser rounds for these rifles and machine guns.

Syria also purchased a quantity of weapons from Czechoslovakia for the Arab Liberation Army, but the shipment arrived in Israel due to the intervention of the Haganah.

After the communist coup in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, military support for the nascent state of Israel increased temporarily. However, Stalin’s brief policy of support for the state of Israel soon faded, and in the wake of the Tito-Stalin split, all Communist parties had to put their foreign policy on par with that of the Kremlin in order to prove their loyalty. In this context, the Czechoslovakian communists put an end to arms sales to Israel.

The first shipment of 200 rifles, 40 MG 34 machine guns and rounds landed secretly on the night of March 31st-April 1st 1948 at an improvised airport in Beit Daras on an American Douglas C-54 Skymaster cargo plane. The second larger shipment, covered with onions and potatoes, consisting of 450 rifles, 200 machine guns and rounds, arrived at the port of Tel Aviv aboard the merchant ship Nora on April 2nd, while a third shipment of ten thousand rifles, 1,415 machine guns and rounds reached Israel by sea on April 28th. Finally, the Haganah command had a stockpile of thousands of small arms on hand, but, as mentioned, other equipment was also needed to create an air force and armored units.

The Aircraft

In the final phase of the Second World War, it was decided that the factory of the Avia company located in Prague-Cakovice would assemble the Messerschmitt Bf109G-6, Bf109G-14 fighters and the Bf109G-12 two-seater trainer aircraft for the needs of the Luftwaffe. This production was based around components supplied by German factories.

After the war, a large stock of remaining spare parts was left and it was studied, along with the original blueprints, by the new authorities in order to begin local production of the aircraft. With the remaining spare parts, some aircraft were assembled, but there was a shortage of engines.

On 31st July 1945, at about 15:30, the ammunition depot at Krásný Březno exploded, killing 27 people and injuring several dozen more. The explosion and subsequent fire destroyed the depot, including the chemical plant buildings. The explosion was interpreted as being a result of sabotage carried out by the local Germans. In retaliation, the locals carried out the Ústí Massacre, killing about 80-100 ethnic Germans.

In addition to munitions, the warehouses that exploded also contained almost all Daimler-Benz DB 605 engines available in Czechoslovakia.

As a result, the Czechoslovak Air Force had to equip the aircraft with the Junkers Jumo 211 F-12 engine ,produced in Czechoslovakia as M-211F, of which there were several left after the war.

The Jumo 211 was not very suitable for installation on fighters, as it was originally intended only for bombers, such as the Heinkel He 111, Focke-Wulf Ta 154 and Junkers Ju 87. It was less powerful and heavier than the Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine, at 720 kg and 1,350 hp versus the DB 605AM’s 700 kg and 1,775 hp (on the Bf109G-14 variant).

Engine maintenance on a Czechoslovakian Avia S-199. The enormous propeller is clearly visible. Source: valka.cz

In addition, the Junkers engines did not provide for the installation of synchronizers, so it was necessary for the Avia engineers to modify them to synchronize the turn of the propellers with the aircraft’s guns, and create a new propeller. The first Avia S-199 fighter ,C-210, took off on April 25th, 1947 from Prague-Kakovice airport, flown by test pilot Petr Široký. After solving some mechanical problems, the series production of the machine began almost immediately.

The Avia fighter differed from the original Messerschmitt Bf.109 only in terms of propulsion and armament. Because of the new engine, the engine cowling, propeller, and spinner were modified.

The armament of the S-199 consisted of two 13 mm Mauser MG 131 machine guns with 600 rounds above the engine, and either two 7.92 mm machine guns in the wings or two 20 mm MG 151 cannons mounted under the wings in gunpods.

Because of the new engine, the Czechoslovakian aircraft was inferior to the German Bf 109 G-10. The maximum speed of the S-199 was 590 km/h compared to 690 km/h of the Messerschmitt. The maximum altitude was 9,000 m compared to 11,000 m. The worst problem was the change in the center of gravity of the aircraft, which greatly complicated takeoff and landing.

An Avia S-199 of the Czechoslovenské letectvo. Source: smartage.pl

The S-199 had another serious defect: the machine guns placed under the engine hood were not always synchronized with the propeller, which led to serious accidents.

Several plants were set up for the production and assembly of the Avia S-199, the Prague Automobile Plant, Plant No. 2 of Avia, and the plants of the Aero company where they assembled the aircraft. Rudders and ailerons were supplied by Letecké Závody in Letňany. The Letov company in Malešice produced the M-211 engines and the propellers and spinners were manufactured in Jinonice.

A total of 450 S-199 single-seaters and 82 CS-199 two-seaters were produced for training purposes, of which 24 were later converted from single-seater fighters.

First Aircrafts

The Czechoslovaks helped create the Israeli Air Force by selling the nascent Israeli state 25 Avia S-199 fighter planes in 1948.

The agreed cost was 180,000 USD (~2 million USD adjusted for inflation) per aircraft, including armament, ammunition, spare parts, pilot training and support equipment. This was a disproportionate price for what was, by now, a mediocre aircraft. At that time, an American surplus P-51D Mustang was sold second hand for only 4,000 USD (~44,000 USD adjusted for inflation).

Unfortunately, due to the embargoes imposed on Israel, it would have taken weeks or months to find other offers, time that Israel did not have given the conflict with the neighboring Arab states. A few weeks could make the difference between destruction and survival for the new state.

David Ben Gurion, the Prime Minister of Israel, did not hesitate and gave the order to buy the planes and to send the pilots to training as quickly as possible. A contract was signed for 25 Avia S-199 at a total cost of 4.5 million USD (~50 million adjusted for inflation).

Pilot Training

The first 10 Israeli pilots departed from Sde Dov on 6th May 1948 and arrived at the Czechoslovakian air base in České Budějovice on May 11th, 1948. Of the 10 pilots, 2 were US volunteers and one was South African, these last three were veteran pilots of the Second World War, having served with the US Army Air Force and Royal South African Air Force respectively. The other seven were British or Palestinian Jews, some of which were World War II veterans, while others had only completed Royal Air Force training in Rhodesia in early 1945, failing to actively participate in World War II.

The first to fly the Czechoslovakian fighter was former Marine Corps pilot Lou Lenart. As soon as he started to gain speed, due to the larger propeller, the aircraft started to yaw to the left. He was aware of this problem but he was likely unable to do anything about it.

When he returned to the runway, he managed to take off after several attempts, having to fight against the plane to avoid going off the runway. After a few minutes, he returned to the airfield and the pilot again had to fight to keep the plane straight during landing.

When all 10 pilots made their first flights, they gave their impressions of the plane. None were positive. The landing gear was narrow and made the S-199 difficult to keep straight during take off due to the huge torque of the propeller. The plane was unwieldy and very hard to handle, the cockpit was cramped and the canopy was hard to open.

The Jewish volunteers discovered that the Czech pilots called the S-199 ‘Mezec’, which means “mule,” and they quickly understood why.

The Jewish volunteers were accustomed to spacious, agile and fast Allied fighters, such as the Spitfire, P-51D Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt. The shock of flying an aircraft with completely different characteristics upset them, but the Avia was all they had and they had to make do.

IAF foreign pilots on an Avia S-199 in Israel. Some of them are US, British, Canadian and South African, Jewish and non-Jewish. Source: asisbiz.com

After only 4 days from the beginning of the training, on May 15th, the pilots of the Sherut Avir, Air Service in Hebrew, the ancestor of the Israeli Air Force, were recalled to Israel.

During training in Czechoslovakia, only five of the volunteers, those with World War II experience, had qualified to fly the Avia and none had flown it more than twice. The first S-199s were disassembled and loaded, along with other equipment, onto a Douglas C-54 Skymaster named Black-5. This plane landed on May 20th, 1948 at Be’er Tuvia, 40 km south of Tel Aviv, with the first disassembled Avia S-199, some bombs, Avia’s machine-gun rounds for the aircraft’s guns, artillery spare parts, and five fighter pilots who had “completed” their training in Czechoslovakia, American Lou Lanart, American Milton Rubenfeld (former RAF and USAF), South African Eddie Cohen (former RAF), Israeli Ezer Weizmann (former RAF) and Israeli Mordecai ‘Modi’ Alon (former RAF).

On the night between 23rd and 24th May 1948, one of the Douglas C-54 Skymasters carrying the fifth Avia for the fifth pilot crashed during landing due to poor visibility. The navigator, Moses Rosenbaum, died crushed by the fuselage of the Avia S-199 they were carrying, while the other three crew members were only injured.

Some sources report that the number of Avia S-199s that arrived in Israel was only 24. This could be a simple error or it could mean that Czechoslovakia delivered all the Avia but that the one that crashed on the night of May 23rd, perhaps because of the damage suffered, could not fly anymore and was used for spare parts.

Operational Use

The Israeli Air Force gave the Czechoslovakian fighter the nickname “סכין”, meaning “knife” in Hebrew. After being reassembled, the aircraft received the Israeli air force’s coat of arms and a number ranging from 100 to 125 for identification.

Aviator Rudy Augarten on board a Willys Jeep. In the background is the Avia S-199 D. 123 (123 .ד‎). Source: asisbiz.com

After the outbreak of hostilities, the war was going badly for the State of Israel, which had been invaded by anArab force composed of Egyptians, Syrians and Iraqis with the support of other nations such as Jordan and Lebanon. The Egyptian Army was advancing north along the Mediterranean coast, arriving less than 30 km from Tel Aviv.

Despite the fact that the Israeli engineers of the Givati Brigade had blown up the bridge over the Lachish river, the Egyptians continued to amass along the south bank of the river. It would take them a few hours to repair the bridge and they could arrive in Tel Aviv during the next day.

That evening, the last phases of the assembly of the first four aircraft had been completed in a hangar. An attack was being organized for the following days against the Royal Egyptian Air Force airport in El Arish, in order to take the REAF by surprise and announce in a very daring way the existence of the IAF.

Due to the proximity of the Egyptians to Tel Aviv, the Israeli pilots were ordered to take off with the only four S-199s that had arrived from Czechoslovakia. The planes had not yet been tested in flight, not all four had radios and those that had them did not work. The guns had never been tested, not even during the training of the pilots, who had flown on these fighters only twice.

Lou Lenart watches the ground crew during the final assembly of one of the four Avia S-199s, May 29th, 1948. Source: wikipedia.org

The four S-199s, piloted by Lou Lenart, Ezer Weizman, Modi Alon and Leonard Cohen, took off one hour before dark. Lenart, who commanded the unit, had never flown in Israel before, and he did not know where Ashdod, which was less than 15 km away from their airport, was located.

Anachronistically, he gestured to the other pilots the direction to go. Having clarified the direction to go, there was another problem, as the villages along the coast looked similar. Fortunately, columns of smoke were seen and, shortly afterwards, a column of Egyptian trucks and light armored vehicles was spotted stretching for more than a mile south of the Ashdod bridge. These belonged to engineering units trying to repair the bridge for the forces that were to take Tel Aviv the next day.

The pilots of the four planes attacked the column, which immediately dispersed. The Egyptians were not aware of the existence of an Israeli air force, lacked sufficient anti-aircraft weapons and, in some cases, had never seen an aircraft before.

The fighters swooped down on the Arabs, dropped the two 70 kg bombs they had and started to strafe the scattering soldiers. After a few shots, the guns jammed. In reality, the bombs and the following machine gun strafing did little damage. However, the psychological impact on the Egyptian troops was so devastating that, the next day, the order to attack Tel Aviv was cancelled. After that, the Egyptian offensive strategy became purely defensive.

During the attack, South African Leonard ‘Eddie’ Cohen’s Red Four plane was shot down by anti-aircraft fire. Cohen was the first loss of the Israeli Air Force. During landing, Modi Alon’s Red Two aircraft went off the runway and was damaged.

At 0530 hrs on May 30th, in order to take advantage of the surprise appearance of the IAF, the two remaining S-199s, piloted by Weizman ,Red 1, and Milt Rubenfeld,Red 3, attacked the village of Tulkarm in northern Israel, which controlled by a Jordanian-Iraqi force.

In this case as well, the real damage was insignificant but the psychological effect was devastating. A bomb had hit the police station where the Arabs were hiding themselves and 4 tanks were machine-gunned.

Rubenfeld’s plane was hit, probably by two anti-aircraft cannon shots, one in the wing and one in the fuselage. Due to the damage sustained by the aircraft, he could only return to the territory controlled by the Israeli Defense Force and then bail out at low altitude into the sea. He jumped from about 370 meters, but the parachute did not open properly and he fell into the water and was injured. He swam towards the shore, andafter two hours, he realized that the water in which he was swimming was very shallow and he had reached land.

He became the target of rifle shots from a nearby kibbutz, being mistaken for an Arab pilot ,the Israeli Air Force had remained a secret until the day before. He was then rescued and, after treatment, brought back by cab to Tel Aviv and then returned to the United States.

Ezer Weizmann sitting on the wheel of the landing gear of an Avia S-199 with the 101st Squadron’s coat of arms. Weizmann would become the seventh president of Israel some year after. Source: wikipedia.org

On May 30th, the unit was officially named the 101st Squadron or First Fighter Squadron, a name that was very impressive for a unit that had two fighters, one of which was operational, and four pilots, one of which was wounded.

On June 3rd, 1948, two Douglas C-47 Dakotas, escorted by two Egyptian Supermarine Spitfires, arrived from over the sea to bomb Tel Aviv. This practice had been ongoing for a long time and had cost the lives of hundreds of civilians in the city. The Egyptian tactic was to drop bombs out the back door onto the city below.

That day, late in the afternoon, 101st Squadron was alarmed that the Egyptian bombers were again on their way to Tel Aviv. Modi Alon took the only available S-199 and took off.
Arriving in the skies over the city, he spotted the two C-47s with two Spitfires escorting them.

Modi Alon first flew west over the Mediterranean Sea, thus being able to approach with the sun behind him. The enemy aircraft would thus have a hard time seeing him, a tactic RAF instructors in Rhodesia had taught him.

Arriving behind the first C-47, he hit it with a long burst of cannons and machine guns and sent it crashing to the ground. With a very risky maneuver, he passed in front of a Supermarine Spitfire and then turned around again to attack the second C-47 head-on.

The slow and clumsy Douglas tried to turn around to get rid of the attacker while the two Spitfires tried to line up the Avia, trying to hit it to defend the bomber.

Alon’s S-199 shots hit the second C-47, which crashed into the Mediterranean shortly after. Alon then pushed the throttle to full and sped away at top speed, without the Spitfires being able to hit it.

Alon’s Avia S-199 attack on the first C-47 in Tel Aviv’s sky on 3rd June 1948. Source: fly.historicwings.com

On June 8th, 1948, during his first mission aboard an S-199, Gideon Lichtman, who had trained for only 35 minutes aboard the Avia, flew the first dogfight of the war against an Egyptian Spitfire that was strafing civilians in Tel Aviv.

Lichtman didn’t even know which trigger to fire, so he kept pressing buttons, levers and switches until he found the right one, and chasing one of the Spitfires, he opened fire, shooting it down. The U.S. pilot was forced to land without fuel because he had only 40 minutes of fuel when he intercepted the enemy plane.

Gideon Lichtman left, Modi Alone (center) and Defence Minister Ben Gurion (right) in front of an Avia S-199. Photo taken the day when Gurion visited the 101 Squadron during the Independence War. Source: pinterest.com

Exactly one month later, on July 8, (some other sources claim 18 July) Modi Alon left with other 2 Avias to attack an Egyptian reinforcement column at Bir Asluj in the Negev Desert.
After the successful attack, on their way back Alon noticed two Egyptian Spitfires Mark VCs in flight, attacked them and managed to shoot down one of them which was the one of the Wing Commander Said Afifi al-Janzuri.

Although the career of the few Israeli Avias seemed good, due to its poor handling characteristics on the ground, no more than four planes were operational together, recalled pilot Mitchell Flint, veteran of the Pacific Campaign.
On the morning of July 9 Lou Lenart was ordered to attack the Egyptian air base of El Arish with four fighters. The fuel was low and the tanks could not be filled to capacity.
During takeoff the Avia S-199 number two piloted by ex-USAF aviator Stan Andrews swerved to the left during takeoff, flipped over and blocked the runway for 15 minutes causing the other fighters to consume fuel.

An Israeli Avia D. 107 (107 .ד‎). overturned on an airstrip side. Source: asisbiz.com

The three remaining operational S-199s running out of fuel hit the much closer Egyptian-controlled Gaza port.

Only two S-199s returned to base while the third, piloted by former USAF Bob Vickman, had not returned. Despite efforts Vickman was never found again.

The next day there was a similar situation, a pair of S-199s attacked two Syrian bombers near the Sea of Galilee. Ex-RAF pilot Maury Mann, shot down one of the two bombers within seconds while his South African ex-RAF wingman Lionel Bloch , in aircraft 108 .ד‎, attacked the second one chasing it as it retreated into Syria.That was the last time Bloch was seen, neither he nor his S-199 returned to base.

The next morning Sydney ‘Syd’ Cohen, a former South African medical student, member of 101 Squadron and future leader of the squadron, took off to search for Bloch or the remains of his plane.

Syd had spent more time training in Czechoslovakia so he realized that there was something wrong with the disappearance of two planes in two days, he acted on instinct and fired a very short burst with the machine guns mounted in the engine cowling.

When he landed, everyone noticed that all three propeller blades had bullet holes in them. The synchronizer was faulty, Vickman, Bloch and some thought also Leonard Cohen had all likely shot their own propellers while firing their guns.

On October 16, 1948, Airman Rudy Augarten, a former USAF pilot who had shot down two Messerschmitt Bf.109s during World War II, was on a reconnaissance mission over El Arish Air Base, which had been attacked the previous day. As he flew south toward the coast in the distance, he saw two Spitfires flying in formation.

Augarten followed the two Egyptian planes, trying not to be detected.
Augarten lined up with one of the Spitfires and fired a burst, sending the Egyptian plane plunging toward the Israeli lines. The other Spitfire, pursued by Augarten’s wingman Leon Frankel, fled the battle.

Rudy Augarten on the doorstep of the Airbase. Note the coat of arms probably cutted from the Spitfire he shooted down. He had the possibility to visit the site where its victim landed some days after it’s victory. Source: pinterest.com

That same day Alon and Weizmann departed at 1658 hrs for a mission near Ashdod where both had done the first IAF mission. After the success of the mission Alon had returned and during the approach to the runway he reported by radio that he had a problem with the landing gear, a common problem on Avias that was never solved. One or both of the pistons that lowered the struts would not extend fully. The Israeli pilots learned the hard way that they had to pull the nose of the fighter up and down to get the landing gear fully retracted into the wing.

While Alon was working out his problem, observers on the ground noticed something more troubling. A trail of gray smoke was coming out of his fighter’s nose.
Alon was told over the radio to check the temperatures of the plane’s various gauges. “They were fine” Alon replied seconds before his fighter crashed in flames next to the runway, killing him. His daughter born 6 months later could not meet him but served in the same squadron as her father.

From that moment on, the Avia S-199 were more and more rarely used by the Israelis.
Very few of them were still operational and, starting from September 25, 1948, about fifty ex-Czech Supermarine Spitfires IX were arriving in Israel, which would have been much more reliable.
The S-199 fighters flew with the Coat of Arms of the Israeli Air Force until June 1949.

The last surviving examples of Avia S-199 in Israel in the Isaeli Air Force Museum, the 120 .ד‎. during a takeoff in 1948 and today. Source: m.calcalist.co.il and asisbiz.com

The aircraft maintained the Czechoslovakian sand coloration but the Israeli Air Force coat of arms (Stars of David) were applied in light blue on a white circular background on the sides of the fuselage and on the wings, top and bottom.

Two views of the Avia numbered 106 .ד‎. The Israeli letter was written behind the David’s Star. Sources: asisbiz.com

During the first missions the Stars of David were painted without paying attention to size, but later they were painted in standard size. Behind the David’s Star there were three bends white-light blue-white and the Israeli identification number, from 100 .ד‎ to 125 .ד‎.

The Avia S-199 numbered 107 .ד‎ with a non standard dimensions David’s Star in the first weeks of war. Note that the star was painted between the number and the Hebrew letter ד‎. Source: asisbiz.com

In front of the propeller nosepiece (which was painted red or blue in some cases) was painted the 101 Squadron coat of arms, a skull with wings inscribed in a red circle.

From September 1948 the rudders were painted with red and white oblique lines but photographic evidence shows that not all aircraft received them, at least until December 1948.

At least one aircraft, towards the end of the war, was painted in two-tone camouflage, dark brown and sand yellow with the underside of the aircraft in Mediterranean blue.

The 123 .ד‎ at the Tel Mid airfield. Note the two tone camouflage and the identification number now painted bigger and in white. Source: asisbiz.com

Conclusion

The Avia S-199, although an extremely unreliable aircraft, was the first aircraft of the Israeli Air Force, the only one that at that time they could acquire due to UN embargoes.
During the 13 months of IAF service the Israeli pilots shot down a total of 8 Arab aircraft without losing a single Avia to Arab aircraft.
The major losses were due to mechanical problems of the aircraft leading to the conclusion that the Avia S-199s were more dangerous for the Israeli pilots than for the Arab pilots.

Avia S-199 Specifications

Wingspans 32 ft 6.5 in / 9,92 m
Length 29 ft 2 in / 8,98 m
Height 8 ft 5.9 in /2,59 m
Wing Area 54134 ft² / 16,500 m²
Engine 1x 1350 hp ( 790 kW ) M-211F V-12 inverted liquid-cooled piston engine
Empty Weight 6305 lb / 2,860 kg
Climb Rate 44.9 ft/s / 13.7 m/s
Maximum Speed 371 mph at 19685 ft / 598 km/h at 6,000 m
Range 534 mi / 860 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 37729 ft/ 11,500 m
Crew One Pilot
Armament
  • 2x 13 mm MG 131 machine guns
  • 2x 20mm MG 151/20 cannons

Gallery

Avia S-199 D. 115 (115 .ד‎) 101 Squadron (Tajeset) IDF Herzliya Sep 1948
Avia S-199 D. 107 (107 .ד‎) 101 Squadron (Tajeset) IDF Herzliya Jun 1948
Avia S-199 D. 123 (123 .ד‎) 101 Squadron (Tajeset) IDF Herzliya Sep 1948

Credits

  • Written by Arturo Giusti
  • Edited by Stan L. & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson
  • airspacemag.com
  • fly.historicwings.com
  • miamiherald.com
  • tabletmag.com
  • machal.org.il
  • valka.cz
  • Avia S-199 – Miroslav Khol
  • vhu.cz
  • iaf.org.il
  • m.calcalist.co.il

Modli J.M. 8

Yugoslavia flag Yugoslavia (1939-1950)
Trainer – 2 Prototypes

The Modli-8 in use with the Yugoslav Aviation after the war. www.paluba.info

The Modli J.M. 8 was designed in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, built by the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), and after World War II, operated by the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY). It was an inexpensive training aircraft that would be used in this role up to 1950.

The Beginning

The story of the Modli J.M. 8 began in 1938, when an aircraft engineer from the 1st Air Force Regiment (stationed at Novi Sad), Josip Modli, finished work on a new light training aircraft design. He originally intended to design and build a single seat trainer that was cheap and simple to manufacture by using mostly wood. He also intended to gain the interest of amateur aviators and aeroclubs with a low price. The J.M. 8 designation comes from the initials of the designer’s name. Due to its small size and low price, it earned the nickname Komarac/komaрац (Mosquito).

The following year, Modli actually began building this aircraft. He reused the small 18 hp engine taken from a damaged French HM.14 Pou du Ciel (Nebeska Vaš/Небеска Ваш in Serbian). Four had been bought from France in 1935 but, due to construction problems, their use was limited and all were damaged during test flights. One was tested at Novi Sad, where the 1st Air Force Regiment was stationed.

Modli reused the engine from a damaged HM.14 Pou du Ciel for his first prototype. Four of these small aircraft were bought from France. www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs

At that time, word of his design and work reached the Yugoslavian Air Force Headquarters. Headquarters then instructed (or ordered, depending on the sources) aircraft engineer Tišma, who was co-owner of the Albatros aircraft manufacturer from the cit of Sremska Mitrovica, to contact Modli. After short negotiations, Tišma and Modli reached an agreement that Albatros should finish the construction of the J.M. 8.  If the design received any mass production orders, Modli agreed to provide Albatros with a license for its production.

The J.M. 8 was completed in early 1941, with testing scheduled to begin in March. Due to bad weather, Albatros’ main airport at Ruma was flooded during March and early April, so no tests flights were conducted. During the outbreak of the April War (Axis invasion of Yugoslavia), all finished and partially constructed planes from Albatros were loaded on a train on the 10th of April. Because of the great confusion due to the outbreak of war and the lack of documentation, the fate of this train and its cargo is unknown to this day.

After the end of  the April War, the Serbian Air Force Commission made estimates of all unpaid pre-war designs, including the Modli J.M. 8, in order to arrange for future payments for military contracts. The commission, after analysis of the Modli J.M. 8 documentation, concluded that the aircraft did not meet any military requirements and was suitable for civilian use only.

Technical Characteristics 

The Modli J.M. 8 was designed as a single engined, high wing, mixed construction (but mostly wood) training aircraft. Its fuselage had a simple design made of plywood. The high wings and the rear tail were made of a wooden structure covered with fabric. For better flight controls, Modli used two modified Gottingen 426 longerons. The wings were connected to the fuselage with three “N” shaped metal bars on both sides and with two additional ones in the centre. The tail had a large rudder and elevators made of wood.

It was powered by the two cylinder Aubier & Dunne 18 hp engine. The engine compartment was covered with duralumin. The two-bladed propeller was made of walnut. A fuel tank with a capacity of 16 liters was placed in the center of the wing.

The Aubier & Dunne 18 hp engine was reused for the first prototype. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs

The landing gear was fixed, but was equipped with rubber shock absorbers for greater comfort and control during  landing. There was no rear wheel, being instead equipped with a small skid and shock absorber.

The pilot’s cockpit was fully open with a small windshield at the front. The cockpit had a simple design and was equipped with basic controls and instrumentation. These flight instruments included an airspeed indicator, fuel level, tachometer, and altimeter. As the first prototype was never adequately tested, details about its flying performance are not known.

During World War II

After the Yugoslavian capitulation, its territories were divided between the Axis forces. The Germans created the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska) puppet state. Despite promises of sending military equipment, weapons and aircraft, the NDH was mostly supplied with older or captured equipment. The NDH aviation industry was heavily dependent on supplies from Germany and Italy, as it lacked any major production capacity or industrial development, meaning domestic production was not possible. The only attempt at domestic production was with the Modli aircraft.

In 1941, Modli joined the new NDH Air Force with the rank of Flight Captain as a flight school instructor. He immediately began working on his second prototype, now simply called Modli-8. Unlike his first prototype, the second one was powered by a stronger four-cylinder Praga-B giving 40 hp. As this engine was too strong for the prototype, its power was reduced to just 20 hp. For the landing gear, two smaller rear wheels from a German Me-109 were reused. The Modli-8 was also shorter in comparison to the first prototype by 0.94 ft (15 cm).

In 1943 Modli was transferred to the technical workshop of the 1st Air Base in Zagreb, where he continued to develop his plane. In 1944, the Modli-8 was completed and introduced to NDH operational service according to authors T. Lisko  and D. Čanak. Unfortunately, they do not give more information on its service history. According to authors B. Nadoveza and N. Đokić on the other hand, noted that Modli deliberately delayed the production of the Modli-8 and it was never fully completed for use by the NDH.

On 26th October 1944, Josip Modli fled to Slovenia at the helm of a Bücker Bü 131 “Jungmann” in hopes of joining the Yugoslav Communist Partisans. Meanwhile, his assistants and friends in Zagreb hid the Modli-8 prototype in the attic of an old shed. Due to the chaos and confusion caused by the war, it was easy to hide the small and lightweight prototype. The Modli-8 would survive the war intact.

The Modli-8 was the only NDH domestically-built aircraft during the War. These two pictures may be the only ones of the Modli-8. Source: www.paluba.infok

In NDH service, the Modli-8’s lower fuselage, wings, and tail were painted in silver. The upper part of the fuselage and vertical stabilizer was blue. The wings struts were painted in red, while the middle of the fuselage wore a red stripe on both sides with a white outline. There were NDH markings with a large “JM8” painted on the tail. The color scheme would remain the same after the war but the NDH marking would be replaced with the Communist Star.

After the War

After the collapse of the NDH and the German forces in Yugoslavia, Modli, now Captain in the Yugoslav People’s Army, moved his prototype from Zagreb to Skopje, where it was completed in an army workshop. Modli himself flew the prototype during the summer of 1945. Surprisingly , he did not report this flight to his superiors and an alarm was raised, with several fighters launched to intercept him. Modli was lucky, as this incident did not affect his military career. The Modli-8 was, by order of Air Force Command, moved to Belgrade for further tests. The aircraft proved to be a good design, as it was easy and pleasant to fly according to test pilot Vasilije Vračević. There were some issues with the sensitivity of the large rudders and elevators during flight. For take off, it only needed a very short 170 m (558 ft) runway, and could land on a 125 m (410 ft) airfield. The maximum speed was around 100 km/h 223 mph at an altitude of 1 km.

The Modli-8 was then given to Aircraft Center Vršac, where it was used for training and propaganda flights. It was used operationally up to 1950, when it was removed from Army service. During its operational service, the Modli-8 was also used as a glider trainer. Under the right conditions it could be used as a glider with the engine shut off, which was useful for glider training.

Josip Modli later (date unknown) designed a two-seater version named Modli-9, but it was never fully completed. Both the Modli-8 and the unfinished 9 were given to the Croatian Technical Museum (Zagreb)  after the death of Josip Modli in 1974.

Production and Modifications

Despite being cheap, easy to build, and pleasant to fly, the Modli-8 was never adopted for military or civilian service. The first prototype was never fully tested due to the outbreak of the war and was lost (precise fate unknown). The second prototype was built during the war and was in use up to 1950. Despite the good feedback for its flight performance from the military, the Modli-8 was rejected for production, mostly due to the recent adoption of the BC-3 Trojka.

Modli J.M.8 – First prototype powered with Aubier & Dunne engine, lost in WW2.

Modli-8 – Second prototype powered by Praga-B engine and with other minor improvements, in service until 1950.

Modli-9 – Two-seater version, never fully completed.

Conclusion

Despite the few number of built aircraft, the Modli J.M. 8 had a small but interesting development history, changing owners several times. It had the honor of being the only aircraft built in Croatia during World War II. Despite its simplistic nature, it saw extensive use as a trainer after the war.

Operators

  • Kingdom of Yugoslavia – One built prototype
  • Independent State of Croatia (NDH) – Constructed one prototype but never tested
  • Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY) – Operated the Modli-8 up to 1950.

Modli-8 (second prototype) Specifications

Wingspans 31 ft 2 in / 9.5 m
Length 19  ft 7 in / 6 m
Height 6 ft  / 1.85 m
Wing Area 36.25 ft² / 11.05 m²
Engine One four cylinder Praga-B 40 hp engine
Empty Weight 474 lbs / 215 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 705  lbs / 320 kg
Fuel Capacity 16 l
Climb Rate to 1 km In 10 minutes
Maximum Speed at 1 km 223 mph / 100 km/h
Take of run 558 ft / 170 m
Landing run 410 ft / 125 m
Range 124 mi / 200 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 5578 ft / 1,700 m
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • None

Gallery

Illustrations by Carpaticus

Modli Croatia
Modli Yugoslavia

Sources:

  • T. Lisko  and D. Čanak (1998), The Croatian Air Force In The WWII, Nacionalna i sveučilišna knjižnica, Zagreb
  • Vojislav V. Mikić, (2000) Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne države Hrvatske 1941-1945, Vojno  istorijski institut Vojske Jugoslavije
  • B. Nadoveza and N. Đokić (2014), Odbrambena Privreda Kraljevine Jugoslavije, Metafizika Beograd.
  • Nebojša Đ.and Nenad M. (2002), IPMS Yugoslavia and Yugoslavian Aviation Special Interest Group Bulletin No 1-4,