Just been flicking through “The Pentagon Paradox. The development of the F-18 Hornet” by James Perry Stevenson (ISBN 1557507759), Shrewsbury, 1993 - It speaks of the an advanced radar-guided missile
TISEO (telescopic imaging sight electro-optical) radar-guided missile (a backup radar-guided missile to the AIM-7F), which was to arm the USAF's FX (McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle)
Does anyone have more information, drawings/pics of this missile system??
Thanks for the clarification gents!!As a matter of curiosity does anyone have drawings of FX/F-15 which show the incorporation of TISEO?? Regards Pioneer
It's called "ATAR" and can be seen on early F-15 layouts eg. this Model 199-1 drawing. As to what ATAR stands for - possibly "Acquisition Tracking And Recognition". The Su-27 was supposed to get a analogous Electo-optical channel in its IRST/LR, but the EO part ended up in the too hard basket.
TISEO was slaved to the radar and provided the aircrew an extended range visual identification of a target to get around restrictive rules of engagement for identify friend or foe. The attached picture showed what data TISEO would present. The F-15 still had a pretty effective onboard IFF capability for allowing engagement at beyond visual ranges.
PS Thanks Paul for that ATAR image. Very interesting to see the pop out nature of it.
The flat front of the glass on the TV seeker under the F-14's radome. How did the flatness affect drag? Why was it never given a more rounded or angled shape or profile?
The flat front of the glass on the TV seeker under the F-14's radome. How did the flatness affect drag? Why was it never given a more rounded or angled shape or profile?
The reason the TISEO and the Optical sight on the F-14 were flat was so it didn't distort the image. Because the camera which was moveable behind the flat glass would pick up on any distortion that a bullet shaped glass would give. Something as small as the TISEO or the F-14s system wouldn't effect performance by a huge amount either (personal opinion only).
A truly pertinent question, since I remember from my Fana lecture that the IRanian Phantoms actually had the TISEO - making superior to the F-15 and somewhat equal to the Tomcat ? ??? Bizarre...
Because developed does not equal free and congress was already complaining that the new fighter cost several times what the F-4 did? As it was early F-15s were very austere systems wise, didn't even have the TWS radar capability enabled for example. It took many quite upgrades to back fit capability to them.
Exactly that. Unit cost was soaring so they deleted some non-essential equipment like the TISEO. Advances in radar techology promised long range target identification without needing a separate optical sight.
Exactly that. Unit cost was soaring so they deleted some non-essential equipment like the TISEO. Advances in radar techology promised long range target identification without needing a separate optical sight.
And optics can be blocked or reduced in effectiveness by clouds, smoke, fog, rain, flocks of birds, sun glare and maybe a few other things before you consider enemy laser blinding, though that was a minor threat in the 1970s.
One of the earliest earliest means of non cooperative target recognition via radar was examining the unique dopplar shift caused by the turbine blades of enemy aircraft. This technology actually got started, reportedly, as a means for the HAWK SAM to track hovering helicopters and engage in ECCM. Later it would cause some infamous problems for DIVADS engaging an enemy cooling fan on the firing range. In any case, the only good way to fool it would be to paint varying RAM patterns on your turbine blades, or hide the blades completely by making a stealthy jet. The other problem is it will only work head on, but a head o but that's exactly when you need it. According to the AIM-7F SAC the missile max tail chase and beam ranges are already so low you'd already be into visual range when you fired. Earlier Sparrow could only have been worse.
If the enemy just jams your radar, that's a good sign he needs to die. Also BVR isn't likely to work anyway.
And optics can be blocked or reduced in effectiveness by clouds, smoke, fog, rain, flocks of birds, sun glare and maybe a few other things before you consider enemy laser blinding, though that was a minor threat in the 1970s.
One of the earliest earliest means of non cooperative target recognition via radar was examining the unique dopplar shift caused by the turbine blades of enemy aircraft. This technology actually got started, reportedly, as a means for the HAWK SAM to track hovering helicopters and engage in ECCM. Later it would cause some infamous problems for DIVADS engaging an enemy cooling fan on the firing range. In any case, the only good way to fool it would be to paint varying RAM patterns on your turbine blades, or hide the blades completely by making a stealthy jet. The other problem is it will only work head on, but a head o but that's exactly when you need it. According to the AIM-7F SAC the missile max tail chase and beam ranges are already so low you'd already be into visual range when you fired. Earlier Sparrow could only have been worse.
If the enemy just jams your radar, that's a good sign he needs to die. Also BVR isn't likely to work anyway.
Have Blue and the F-117 took it into account 30+ years ago. Then the B-1B in the early 80s of course. In addition there were others such as Tacit Blue, Senior Prom, the B-2, F-22, YF-23. . .
Have Blue and the F-117 took it into account 30+ years ago. Then the B-1B in the early 80s of course. In addition there were others such as Tacit Blue, Senior Prom, the B-2, F-22, YF-23. . .
Have Blue and the F-117 took it into account 30+ years ago. Then the B-1B in the early 80s of course. In addition there were others such as Tacit Blue, Senior Prom, the B-2, F-22, YF-23. . .
Have Blue and the F-117 took it into account 30+ years ago. Then the B-1B in the early 80s of course. In addition there were others such as Tacit Blue, Senior Prom, the B-2, F-22, YF-23. . .
the below statment started this conversation.. don't know how engines got into this thread.
"One of the earliest earliest means of non cooperative target recognition via radar was examining the unique dopplar shift caused by the turbine blades of enemy aircraft."
Confirmation they are all basically the same thing:
ATAR NARROW FIELD TELESCOPE
The Airborne Target Advanced Recognition (ATAR) telescope was a 4.5-inch diameter, 31-inch focal length telescope with a primary focus near the vertex of the Mangin primary mirror. The resolution
and focal length was doubled by a 2:1 magnifier color-corrected cemented doublet lens mounted in the central baffle tube usually required for this type of telescope. The lens pushed the focal plane back onto the faceplate of a 1-inch vidicon TV Tube behind the primary mirror. With no changes, that telescope was produced in the thousands for the Air Force F-4 TISEO (Target Identification System, Electro Optical), the Navy F-14 TCS (Television Camera Set), and the Army Hawk Radar TAS (Tracking Adjunct System).
Air Force plans to install Northrop Corp.’s electro-optical tracking device as an air-to-air recognition, or optical identification, friend or foe (IFF) system in the F-15 air-superiority fighter. The stabilized television camera, known as airborne tracking, acquisition and recognition (ATAR) system (AW&ST Nov. 18, 1968, p. 99), will extend a pilot’s visual recognition range. Several ATAR systems are to be flight tested in USAF/ McDonnell Douglas F-4 aircraft.
A passive electro-optical tracking device which would improve a pilot’s visual means of recognizing other aircraft or ground targets is being produced for USAF and evaluated by Navy.
The basic tracking concept appears to have several potential aircraft applications. Uses as a seeker for small airborne missiles or glide bombs or as a tail warning device for tactical aircraft are among them. It was developed by Northrop Nortronics Div. and is based on early design efforts of Southern Research Institute.
The principal application of current interest centers on its possible use as a visual tracking device. or optical identification, friend or foe (lFF) system. This would have particular value for extending the positive visual identification range in the combat situations that occur in Vietnam where pilots must make visual, rather than radar, target identification before attacking potential airborne threats.
Typically, the tracking device consists of a gimbaled television camera with a fixed-magnification telescope mounted in some appropriate location dictated by the desired application. The TV images are routed back to the cockpit for display on monitors for use by the crew. The device effectively provides a fighter pilot or radar operator with a real time, stabilized picture of an optically tracked airborne or ground target.
The optical IFF version of the device is called airborne tracking, acquisition and recognition (ATAR) system. USAF flight tested an ATAR system with reportedly great success on a McDonnell-Douglas F-101 fighter. The sensor or tracking portion of the system was chin-mounted on the aircraft and controlled from the cockpit. The device was able to acquire and lock onto targets at ranges in excess of what the pilot might ordinarily see.
In another application. the line-of-sight of an electro-optical air-to-air missile, like an infrared Sidewinder or the Air Force‘s proposed short-range missile (SRM), could be slaved to the line-of-sight of the ATAR tracking system, which has greater acquisition range than the missiles seeker.
ATAR could provide pointing commands to the missile seeker so it can acquire and track the target at longer ranges, where the target may subtend only 2—3 TV lines in a missile seeker.
The system is intended to track ground targets at long ranges, even after the release of ordnance for which it acquires a target. In this way, it enables the aircraft to assess bomb damage or gather reconnaissance data after releasing its weapons.
Nortronics is understood to have proposed several methods by which the technique could be adapted for use as an electro-optical seeker for an air-to-ground missile, like the Hughes Maverick, or the planned SRM.
In still another variation, considered for the AX and FX aircraft programs, an ATAR seeker supplies line-of-sight attitude rate and acceleration inputs for a digital computer which, in turn, computes lead angles for the aircraft’s flexible guns.
Air Force plans to install Northrop Corp.’s electro-optical tracking device as an air-to-air recognition, or optical identification, friend or foe (IFF) system in the F-15 air-superiority fighter. The stabilized television camera, known as airborne tracking, acquisition and recognition (ATAR) system (AW&ST Nov. 18, 1968, p. 99), will extend a pilot’s visual recognition range. Several ATAR systems are to be flight tested in USAF/ McDonnell Douglas F-4 aircraft.
A passive electro-optical tracking device which would improve a pilot’s visual means of recognizing other aircraft or ground targets is being produced for USAF and evaluated by Navy.
The basic tracking concept appears to have several potential aircraft applications. Uses as a seeker for small airborne missiles or glide bombs or as a tail warning device for tactical aircraft are among them. It was developed by Northrop Nortronics Div. and is based on early design efforts of Southern Research Institute.
The principal application of current interest centers on its possible use as a visual tracking device. or optical identification, friend or foe (lFF) system. This would have particular value for extending the positive visual identification range in the combat situations that occur in Vietnam where pilots must make visual, rather than radar, target identification before attacking potential airborne threats.
Typically, the tracking device consists of a gimbaled television camera with a fixed-magnification telescope mounted in some appropriate location dictated by the desired application. The TV images are routed back to the cockpit for display on monitors for use by the crew. The device effectively provides a fighter pilot or radar operator with a real time, stabilized picture of an optically tracked airborne or ground target.
The optical IFF version of the device is called airborne tracking, acquisition and recognition (ATAR) system. USAF flight tested an ATAR system with reportedly great success on a McDonnell-Douglas F-101 fighter. The sensor or tracking portion of the system was chin-mounted on the aircraft and controlled from the cockpit. The device was able to acquire and lock onto targets at ranges in excess of what the pilot might ordinarily see.
In another application. the line-of-sight of an electro-optical air-to-air missile, like an infrared Sidewinder or the Air Force‘s proposed short-range missile (SRM), could be slaved to the line-of-sight of the ATAR tracking system, which has greater acquisition range than the missiles seeker.
ATAR could provide pointing commands to the missile seeker so it can acquire and track the target at longer ranges, where the target may subtend only 2—3 TV lines in a missile seeker.
The system is intended to track ground targets at long ranges, even after the release of ordnance for which it acquires a target. In this way, it enables the aircraft to assess bomb damage or gather reconnaissance data after releasing its weapons.
Nortronics is understood to have proposed several methods by which the technique could be adapted for use as an electro-optical seeker for an air-to-ground missile, like the Hughes Maverick, or the planned SRM.
In still another variation, considered for the AX and FX aircraft programs, an ATAR seeker supplies line-of-sight attitude rate and acceleration inputs for a digital computer which, in turn, computes lead angles for the aircraft’s flexible guns.
TISEO was slaved to the radar and provided the aircrew an extended range visual identification of a target to get around restrictive rules of engagement for identify friend or foe. The attached picture showed what data TISEO would present. The F-15 still had a pretty effective onboard IFF capability for allowing engagement at beyond visual ranges.
ATAR is mentioned several times in this 1968 Panel on Tactical Aircraft; while predating the F-15 itself, ATAR was recommended to multiple future platforms for both Air to Air and Air to Ground ranging functions. ATAR would have greatly enhanced target acquisition with the AGM-12 and automatic bomb release, as well enhancing the FAC role. Commonality with the Navy was seen as a *must* in terms of acquisition.
Stumbled across this interesting picture of a F-101 Voodoo equipped with what looks like additional optical sensors and armed with a MIM-23 HAWK SAM.
One assumes it's a trial configuration for the HAWK's performance....?
It would be interesting to know the timeframe, as the Iranian Air Force itself would later go on to operationally arm it's F-4 Phantom's and F-14 Tomcat's with a modified HAWK missiles.
Regards
Pioneer
Attachments
McDonnell F-101 Voodoo with additional sensors and MIM-23 HAWK missile.jpg
Stumbled across this interesting picture of a F-101 Voodoo equipped with what looks like additional optical sensors and armed with a MIM-23 HAWK SAM.
One assumes it's a trial configuration for the HAWK's performance....?
Though I seem to have a vague memory of a air-launched HAWK variant as part of an USAF ASAT program? My brain is fried at the moment, so I could be wrong.
Stumbled across this interesting picture of a F-101 Voodoo equipped with what looks like additional optical sensors and armed with a MIM-23 HAWK SAM.
One assumes it's a trial configuration for the HAWK's performance....?
It would be interesting to know the timeframe, as the Iranian Air Force itself would later go on to operationally arm it's F-4 Phantom's and F-14 Tomcat's with a modified HAWK missiles.
A passive electro-optical tracking device which would improve a pilot’s visual means of recognizing other aircraft or ground targets is being produced for USAF and evaluated by Navy.
The basic tracking concept appears to have several potential aircraft applications. Uses as a seeker for small airborne missiles or glide bombs or as a tail warning device for tactical aircraft are among them. It was developed by Northrop Nortronics Div. and is based on early design efforts of Southern Research Institute.
The principal application of current interest centers on its possible use as a visual tracking device. or optical identification, friend or foe (lFF) system. This would have particular value for extending the positive visual identification range in the combat situations that occur in Vietnam where pilots must make visual, rather than radar, target identification before attacking potential airborne threats.
Typically, the tracking device consists of a gimbaled television camera with a fixed-magnification telescope mounted in some appropriate location dictated by the desired application. The TV images are routed back to the cockpit for display on monitors for use by the crew. The device effectively provides a fighter pilot or radar operator with a real time, stabilized picture of an optically tracked airborne or ground target.
The optical IFF version of the device is called airborne tracking, acquisition and recognition (ATAR) system. USAF flight tested an ATAR system with reportedly great success on a McDonnell-Douglas F-101 fighter. The sensor or tracking portion of the system was chin-mounted on the aircraft and controlled from the cockpit. The device was able to acquire and lock onto targets at ranges in excess of what the pilot might ordinarily see.
In another application. the line-of-sight of an electro-optical air-to-air missile, like an infrared Sidewinder or the Air Force‘s proposed short-range missile (SRM), could be slaved to the line-of-sight of the ATAR tracking system, which has greater acquisition range than the missiles seeker.
ATAR could provide pointing commands to the missile seeker so it can acquire and track the target at longer ranges, where the target may subtend only 2—3 TV lines in a missile seeker.
The system is intended to track ground targets at long ranges, even after the release of ordnance for which it acquires a target. In this way, it enables the aircraft to assess bomb damage or gather reconnaissance data after releasing its weapons.
Nortronics is understood to have proposed several methods by which the technique could be adapted for use as an electro-optical seeker for an air-to-ground missile, like the Hughes Maverick, or the planned SRM.
In still another variation, considered for the AX and FX aircraft programs, an ATAR seeker supplies line-of-sight attitude rate and acceleration inputs for a digital computer which, in turn, computes lead angles for the aircraft’s flexible guns."——Aviation Week Nov 18 1968
ATAR was also tested with MIM-23 Hawk and probably forms the basis of the improved electro-optical sight. I think that explains why this plane has a Hawk on it.
My dad developed this system on the F-101 at Tyndall AFB in Florida after being hit by a missile during the William Tell competition where he was towing a target but the radar guided the launch to his 101. The dummy warhead couldn't detonate but damaged the undercarriage enough that extending and locking landing gear was very uncertain. I have original photos and reports (FIST, TISEO, ATAR) including on his F-4 at Nellis, up to 1971 when he went to Vietnam without it. The Navy added it to the F-14 but the Air Force didn't buy it in big numbers.
My dad developed this system on the F-101 at Tyndall AFB in Florida after being hit by a missile during the William Tell competition where he was towing a target but the radar guided the launch to his 101. The dummy warhead couldn't detonate but damaged the undercarriage enough that extending and locking landing gear was very uncertain. I have original photos and reports (FIST, TISEO, ATAR) including on his F-4 at Nellis, up to 1971 when he went to Vietnam without it. The Navy added it to the F-14 but the Air Force didn't buy it in big numbers.
My dad developed this system on the F-101 at Tyndall AFB in Florida after being hit by a missile during the William Tell competition where he was towing a target but the radar guided the launch to his 101. The dummy warhead couldn't detonate but damaged the undercarriage enough that extending and locking landing gear was very uncertain. I have original photos and reports (FIST, TISEO, ATAR) including on his F-4 at Nellis, up to 1971 when he went to Vietnam without it. The Navy added it to the F-14 but the Air Force didn't buy it in big numbers.
Hi First Son:
I was a Tow Systems Operator (TSO) in the 475th Test Sq, TAFB 1971-77 and flew in the F101B. While there I towed targets for 3 William Tell competitions. I’m a new member as of today matter of fact and my main interest is, and has been for quite some time, to find any and all information about target towing, Tow reels, targets, and test programs I was on and supported during that time. Jumping right into my research I surprisingly found your article about your fathers experience of which I’m very interested in. During my initial TSO learning phase I was informed of prior mishaps, dangers and events that took place before me and one was a brief mention on the incident your father was in. Although I wasn’t given the exact facts as they weren’t really known by the individual training me just that the missile impacted the tractor aircraft causing a problem with the gear.
Henceforth, I would really love to know more about that event and any information and photos you may provide with your permission. Because the Tow reel is bolted under the center line and can not be ejected from the aircraft any problem with getting the gear down and locked required leaving the aircraft as stated in the dash one check list. This was due to the Tow reel being forced up into the main fuel cell directly above it therefore a wheels up forced landing was out of the question. I don’t know your fathers term of assignment at TAFB or the date the event occurred and only told that the pilot and TSO bailed out. I’d love to know more about the event. If you have questions or an interest about anything with the Test Sq during my six plus years I’d be happy to help you with.
Any information you may provide me with would be greatly appreciated thank you.
All the best,
D. George
My dad developed this system on the F-101 at Tyndall AFB in Florida after being hit by a missile during the William Tell competition where he was towing a target but the radar guided the launch to his 101. The dummy warhead couldn't detonate but damaged the undercarriage enough that extending and locking landing gear was very uncertain. I have original photos and reports (FIST, TISEO, ATAR) including on his F-4 at Nellis, up to 1971 when he went to Vietnam without it. The Navy added it to the F-14 but the Air Force didn't buy it in big numbers.
My dad developed this system on the F-101 at Tyndall AFB in Florida after being hit by a missile during the William Tell competition where he was towing a target but the radar guided the launch to his 101. The dummy warhead couldn't detonate but damaged the undercarriage enough that extending and locking landing gear was very uncertain. I have original photos and reports (FIST, TISEO, ATAR) including on his F-4 at Nellis, up to 1971 when he went to Vietnam without it. The Navy added it to the F-14 but the Air Force didn't buy it in big numbers.
Hello Paul MM, whenever your interested in writing that article I would be happy to help you with any information about the Tow Reels and targets used on the F-101B during the six plus years I was a TSO assigned to the 475th Test Sq., TAFB.
All the best,
D. George
Stumbled across this interesting picture of a F-101 Voodoo equipped with what looks like additional optical sensors and armed with a MIM-23 HAWK SAM.
One assumes it's a trial configuration for the HAWK's performance....?
It would be interesting to know the timeframe, as the Iranian Air Force itself would later go on to operationally arm it's F-4 Phantom's and F-14 Tomcat's with a modified HAWK missiles.
An interesting piece about this, Early Hawk is very similar to pre-Pulse Doppler Sparrow in terms of electronics. If CW could be provided, Hawk could probably be adapted.
The "if" there is interesting because the F-101's fire control radar in its original configuration did not have a CW illuminator to the best of my knowledge. Radar AIM-4s (at least initially) guided on pulse.
There are some unknowns for later units but that's a different discussion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
