Interview with a former F-105 pilot and Vietnam veteran

A former F-105 pilot kindly accepted an interview. D. served in Vietnam carrying out very dangerous missions in Hanoi. He also flew many years in a F-104 Starfighter, and got some eaarly experience in a F-102. I would like to thank him for his time.

1) Hello D., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the USAF?

The path started right after WW2.  I was lying on a hill side with my cousin watching someone in a WACO bi-plane sky writing right above us.  I thought I would like to do that.  I began studying airplanes.  My father would take us to the airport to watch the big airplanes take off and land (C-47s).  During the Korean War, I listened to radio broadcasts about fights over MiG Alley.  When I entered engineering school, I enrolled in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corp.  I was commissioned a 2LT upon graduation and had a slot to enter the USAF pilot training program.  I already possessed a private pilots license so I already knew how to fly.

2) What was your first impression of the F-105?  What do you think were the weak and strong points?

Wow this is a big jet. It was 12 feet up to the cockpit.  You could not touch the wings unless you were on a ladder. I had already flown the F-102 and the F-101B, both interceptors designed to stop the Russians from coming into the US with nuclear armed bombers.  The F-102 concept started in the late 40s. The initial F-101 was built as a single seat nuclear weapons delivery aircraft.  The F-101 was modified with a second cockpit for the weapon systems officer who basically ran the intercepts.   The F-105 was built as a nuclear weapons delivery aircraft.  It had a bombay to hold a B-57 or B-43 nuclear weapon.  I don’t think it was ever certified to carry the B-61 that came later. I never sat on nuclear alert in the Thud. I only flew it with a 390 gallon fuel tank in the bombay.

The F-105 was never designed to be a “day” fighter and it had a very high wing loading so it took a lot of sky to turn it. That high wing loading made it a very stable airplane.  It was equipped with a M-61 Vulcan 20 mm cannon that fired 100 rounds per second. That gun was very effective.

When the war in Vietnam included going to Hanoi, the F-105 was the best airplane to do that job.  A lot of F-105s were shot down because of a soviet style highly integrated air defense system of AAA , SAMs, and aircraft (Mig-17s, MiG-21s while I was there).   We lost 80% to AAA, 15% to SAMS, and 10% to MiGs. The war up North was winding down when the D Model Thuds were pulled out of Combat.

 It could fly very fast for a long way either high or very low. We could refuel using either the probe and drogue system or the boom and receptical system.  I used both in combat going to and coming back from North Vietnam.
The airplane could sustain a lot of damage and still fly.  It had a dry wing and the fuel tanks were above the engine.  

The F-105 cockpit was very well designed.  The instrument layout was well thought out.  The D Model and later versions all had vertical tapes for airspeed and altitude. These were very easy to interpret.   

3) How did it compare to other century fighters you flew (F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104)?

I never did fly the F-100.  All of these jets were being designed and built as aerodynamic laws were being discovered and were the second generations of jet aircraft.  For instance, the F-102, equipped with a J-57 engine, could not go supersonic until the area rule (coke bottle) concept was discovered and used on its fuselage. That concept was also used on the F-106 that used the J-75 and reach Mach 2. I learned a lot flying the F-102. Its delta wing led to a low wing loading but you could get behind the power curve and find yourself sinking like a rock but still able to pull the nose up, use the ailerons and crash on final.  The F-102 needed a much larger engine.  It was fun to fly.   

The F-101 had two J57 engines and plenty of power but its high tail led to pitch ups. That led to systems added to warn the pilot it was about to depart.  The F-101B could climb like a banshee making it spectacular watch it climb at night.  I learned to watch for the nose to begin to wonder on its own before the vanes warned me about a pitch up.  I leaned to fly the airplane, and not horse it around.

The F-105 was a delight to fly.  Once you learned to keep the airspeed up and to feel the burble before a stall the airplane could do is job.  The big difference for me was learning the new weapons and how to fly both air to air combat as well as air to ground attack.  These were new to me and it took time in the cockpit practicing.  We initially started our attack missions flying low level, finding the initial point, popping up and rolling in on the target at a 45 degree dive and releasing at 550 knots.  About half way through our training, the war in Vietnam was changing.  The airplanes were now flying pod formations with jamming pods loaded on an outboard pylon.  Sixteen attack aircraft were in this B-17 like formation heading to Berlin.  That’s the formations I was involved in heading to Hanoi.  The airplane was well suited for this role.

The F-104G while much smaller than the F-105 flew very much like a Thud.  Again, once you learned to keep the speed up and paid attention to the T tail, it flew very well.  I spent a lot of time teaching in this jet.  Initially I was teaching new German Air Force pilots coming out of pilot training how to fly the airplane, next was teaching them how fight with it.   

4) Having flown fighters and interceptors up to that point, was it difficult to adjust to a fighter-bomber (workload)? Did you ever miss a WSO (Weapons System Officer)?

Learning how to shift from being an interceptor pilot to a ground attack pilot was a huge shift.  Much of it was head work, thinking through the maneuvers, the timing of what to do next.  I never missed not having a WSO.  Once I had roughly 6 or 7 trips to Hanoi, I felt I had the hang of it, especially after learning how to defeat a SAM fired at me.  I was never comfortable about heading to Hanoi but I knew what I was doing and what to expect.  When I finished my 100 missions in North Vietnam, I knew I knew what I was doing.

5) What was the maximum speed you managed to reach in the F-105? And altitude? Was there a limiting factor (aircraft temperature, engine)?

I have had the F-105 at 815 Knots at about 4000 feet over Hanoi.   I aimed at diving steep, driving for 60 degrees and dropping at 500 knots, pilling out of thr dive at 600 knots because the MiG-21 was limited to 595 at those altitudes.  There was no way he could catch up with me.  A clean F-105 would reach Mach 2 at 35,000 feet on a test hop.  The limiting speed was canopy heat at low altitude as I remember.

6) What was the maximum payload you flew with?

The heaviest payload I carried was carrying two 3000 pound bombs, one each wing, a QRC jamming pod, and a 650 gallon center line fuel tank. These bombs were heading to a bridge, or a rail yard near Hanoi.  

7) What was the typical weapon configuration? Did you use any guided air-to-surface missiles?

My typical combat load was 6 759 pound bombs on a center line bomb rack, two 450 gallon fuel tans on the in board pylons, a QRC pod, and some times I was armed with a side winder missile on the out board pylon.  

When I was assigned to a Wild Weasel flight as a D-model pilot (the 388th TFW at Korat did this), I was armed with an AGM-45 anti SAM missile under one in board pylon.  I some times had 6 750 pound bombs and some times 6 ClusterBombs, or 6 500 pond bombs.  I did this 6 times near Hanoi.  I was a weasel hired gun.  I would pull up with the F-105F weasel, fire the AGM -45 as diected by the Weasel Bear, and roll in on a target as directed by the weasel pilot.

In southern North Vietnam, a few pilots dropped and guided Bullpup missiles on a target.  They were stiiting ducks while steering the missile. I saw one of my squadron pilots fly one into a mountain tunnel and the mountain blew up.  Could not do that if we were being shot at.

8) The F-102 had an IRST sensor? Did you miss it in the F-105?

The F-101 also had an IRST sensor.  They were designed to help guide IR Missiles that were loaded on these interceptor aircraft.   I never missed it on the F-105 or the F-104.  We could hear this missile growl in the head sets and knew the missile sees the target.

9) Could you describe how a nuclear attack mission would have been carried out? How fast could you take off, was there a final confirmation before carrying out launching of bombs? Would you have kept radio silence during the entire sortie?

I went through comb commanders school at Nellis but we were told we would get a local checkout as needed. I was in an air to ground war in North Vietnam.  In February 1968, the North Koreans captured the Pueblo.  The F-105 units in Japan and in Okinamwa were sent to Korea at Osan.  Some sat nuclear alert, have new targets assigned to them.  Others were loaded with weapons loads that I was carrying to North Vietnam.  After my combat tour, I was assigned to the F-105 at Kadena, Okinawa.  I got a local area checkout, then went to the States to get my family.  When I got back, I learned I was assigned to thw Wing and would fly the T-33.  So I never sat nuclear alert at Kadena.

10) Did you get any specific training before being deployed in Vietnam?

We all attended Global Survival School.  I did my traing in the State of Washington before being sent to Las Vegas to get checked out in the aircraft.  I went through the long course at Nellis since this was my first exposure to flying air to air and air to ground combat.  That training gave me the basics in flying in combat.  I was being sent to the 469th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Korat.

On my way to Korat I was sent to the Phillipines to attend jungle survival school.  This training was to help us if we ejected over the jungle.  We were taught how to find water, some edible plants, making shelter, and basics on evading capture.

11) How did the local conditions affect the aircraft performance?

Las Vegas is very hot in the summer but had long runways.  Korat was also hot but had an 8,000 foot runway.  Fortunately the F-105 had a water injection system for that beautiful J-75 which added 2000 pounds of thrust.  We needed it!  I kept my left hand finger pointed right at the mater ejection button on every takeoff in case I needed to clean the aircraft to fly.  

12) How many hours did you typically flew per year? And when deployed in Vietnam?

We typically flew about 150 hours per year.  I combat in the F-105D,  I flew over 300 hours a tad more than 6 months ( 4 Nov-14 May)

13) What tactics did you use if you were intercepted by enemy fighters (Try to escape/engage enemy)?

By the time I was flying over North Vietnam, the Vietnamese changed their tactics.  The MiG-17s were generally below 15,000 feet.  I saw them but did not attempt to chase them.  My job was to bomb targets, not chase MiGs.

The MiG-21 was the one I had my engagements with.  It is a small jet with very little smoke coming out of the tail pipe.  The would most often come in well above out flights at 14,000 to 18,000 feet, at a 90 degree angle.  They would jettison their fuel tans, select after burner and arrive behind their target flight suoersonic and slightly low. If their target aircraft “broke” at the right time, he may have been able to negate the attack.  The MiG would lower its nose stay in AB and disappear in the distance.  I was attacked a few times but I don’t think ever shot at.

14) The F-105 did not last very long in service and was phased out rather quicky. Do you think it was a good decision? Could it have served a few more years with an upgrade?

The F-105 was in combat from November 1964 (I think) through the end of 1968.  It was involved in all the action starting with Rolling Thunder to the end of Rolling Thunder when President Johnson halted flights up North. The F-105Fs later all modified the Gs, were fully modified and were all kept in combat. The inventory of remaining F-105Ds precluded further mods. The Wild Weasels were heavily involved with Linebacker I and Linebacker II.  The F-105Ds were all given to the Air Nation Guard and Reserves.  The F-105Bs never saw combat.

15) Was there any Soviet system that impressed you (MiG-25, SA-2, Tu-95)?

The MiG-21 was a very capable aircraft.  

16) Did you have an opportunity to interact with NATO or Allied countries? What was your impression of the equipment and training?

I was heavily involved with NATO.  At Luke AFB in Phoenix AZ, I was an instructor pilot in the F-104G teaching young German Air Forces Lieutenants to fly the F-104G.  Then we taught them to flight with it.  After a year or so I attended the GAF/USAF Fighter Weapons School.  Not long after, I was chosen to lead the school. We had students from Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium while I was there.  We were teaching Weapons instructors more about the weapons, introduced them to new tactics we had developed in the school, and subjects most of them had not been exposed to.  I was then selected to attend the Canadian Command and Staff College for a year. My next assignment was to HQ USAFE in Ramstine Germany as an F-104 pilot.  I went to 421 Squadron In Baden Sollingen to become re current in the F-104.  That began three years of flying the F-104 in three different German    fighter Wings, two Italian Wings, a Dutch wing and one in Belgium. I became current in the F-104S at Rimini, Italy.  I was a nuclear weapons evaluator not only for HQ USAFE but also for HQ SHAPE in Mons.  That had me flying in 15 different squadrons.  I found their training was excellent.  Very similar to US Squadrons.  

17) What was your most challenging sortie? And the most memorable one (if not the same!)?

I would pick my second trip to the Doumer Bridge I Hanoi.  I was they very last person to roll in.  Every gun in the valley was there to shoot at me.  I wound up briefing President Johnson about my roll in this mission.

18) Is there any anecdote you would like to share before finishing the interview (usually something funny)?

Shoot low, they are all riding shetlands.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a veteran of the French Foreign Legion
- Interview with 2 former LanceR pilots
- Interview with a former GCI/WPN controller in the French Air Force
- Interview with a Chieftain veteran
- Interview with a former Leopard 2A4 gunner in the German Army
- Interview with 2 Romanian MiG-23 pilots
- Interview with a former M48 commander in the National Guard of the US
- Interview with a former M-84 commander
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former M60A2 "Starship" tanker
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Australia
- Interview with a former Type-59 tanker in the Army of Albania
- Interview with a former Leopard 2 tanker in the Army of the Netherlands
- Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot
- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Challenger tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a veteran of the French Foreign Legion

A veteran of the French Foreign Legion has accepted an interview for the blog. C. is also a veteran of the Gulf War and participated in several missions abroad during his service. He is also very familiar with some of the vehicles used by this unit.

1) Hello C., thank you for accepting an interview for alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide us with a summary of your career in the French Army?

15 years in the Legion
From 1985 to 2000 when I retired.

First 11 years in 1 REC
All in a recce platoon from private to Sergeant Major (Adjutant) and platoon commander

I held all the jobs in the platoon and worked my way up.

Served on AMX10RC, ERC90, and AML90/60 as well as on the Light vehicles in the platoon.

We participated in operations in Senegal 1986
Chad 1987
Central African Republic same year (87)

Then an operation on the French islands of the Indian Ocean in 1989.

Then in Saudi Arabia and Iraq 1990 - 91 (gulf war).

Then Djibouti and operations in Somalia during the period 1992 to 1994.

Finally in 1994 and 95 we operated in ex-Yugoslavia. Mainly in the Sarajevo area.

1996 I was transferred to the Legion secret services and worked there until I retired in 2000

2) You joined the Foreign Legion, one of the most famous units in the French Army. What was the most demanding aspect of the training?

First of all, we must take into consideration that the French Foreign Legion is a very particular military unit that has been built up over a 200-year period to become probably the most multi-national, multi-cultural, and multi-ethnic organisation currently in existence. It has today over 140 nationalities represented among its around 9000 men strong force. This exceptional reservoir of human potential obviously requires a very special education to work properly. The formation is so strong that in many ways the Legion should probably in many aspects be considered as a military cult where its members are part of a large family, or at least like monks in a monastery. Well... with the occasional access to women and booze though.

However, when you are hiring men from all over the world and from all possible cultural, religious, and social background, you will have to spend a lot of efforts in the beginning on taking out their heads their original culture, their original hight spirited ideas of their own individual value, and most of all eventual ideas about any racial and ill-conceived stupid concept of ethnic superiority.
To do this you have to break everybody down together, until eveyone is completely convinced that we are all (whatever colour, race, or ethnicity) equally completely useless. When we finally are all in the deepest shit together for a very long period, we learn very clearly that we are all equal humans, and that it is only together and united we might have a slight chance against the enemy.
It appears to me that this process can be considered by many as very uncomfortable. Not physically very difficult for a young normally fit man, but mentally so hard that many will not succeed. This is where we separate the men from the dickheads.

Once we have achieved this, we can slowly start to build a legionnaire. The Legion basic training is as the name implies, very basic.  We obviously start from zero with a group of candidates that for the majority don’t speak a word of French. Hence the goal of the basic training is to make a simple, basic legionnaire that can survive the daily life in an operational combat platoon where he will really begin to learn the trade.

In order to achieve this, he must learn the following:
•    400 words of the French language that will give him a survival military vocabulary.
•    Learn to use and maintain in a safe way his individual weapon.
•    Achieve the phycical requirements (basic infantry stuff, nothing difficult).
•    Learn the use of infantry equpments (comms, NBC, navigation, vehicles, etc...)
•    Legion administration, rules and regulations, uniforms, maintenance, etc..
•    Legion history and the cult dogmas giving him the quasi-religious rules to live under.

This will allow him after approximately 5 months to join a combat platoon in a regiment. If he can survive another 6 months there, we can start to say that we have a legionnaire.

This training is more mentally painful than physically difficult. But this is how you make a man out of a kid.

3) How was the interaction with the different nationalities in the Legion? Any issues with culture/language?

Not really. There is only one culture (the Legion culture), and there is only one language. French.
I do not recommend anyone to behave differently and outside this framework.

4) You have used AMX10RC, ERC90, and AML90/60. What do you think were the strong and weak points of these vehicles?

All weapons systems, and armoured recconaisaance vechiles included, will always be a trade off between systems desiered strengths, and weaknesses that are often the costs one have to pay in order to achive the strenghts.

These veichles have been concived within the french concept of independent long-range offensive reconnaisance missions, were the objective is to be able control large areas and to provide an important amont of firepower in one place, this independently and over long distances.

Therefore, they all have a very long range capacity and are capable of operating over hundreds of kilometers mainly in the desert, but also in otherwise difficult terrain. Secondly they are fast. They drive at basically the same speeds as small trucks and cars. This compared to tracked vehicles that conventionally will be the types that have the same firepower, is a huge advantage. However the range and speed obviously comes at a cost of a somehow reduced all terrain capacity when compared to similar tracked vehicles.

By using either a 105 mm canon (AMX10RC) or a 90 mm (ERC90 and AML90), they are carrying a formidable firepower that can outgun in both explosive effect and range most other vehicles than the heavy tanks on the battlefield. This makes them able to destroy with one round the majority of potential targets, or at least seriously damage (put out of service) even the most modern heavily armored tanks. Even if there are armors that will resist a direct hit from a 105 mm and the crew might survive, it will be a very bad day with at least optics, electronics, and hauydraulics seriously damaged.

But all these good sides obviously comes at a cost. Speed, range, and mobility with strong firepower is obtained by reducing the armor in order to have less weight. It's the light cavalry from our history books. You surely know about the Hussards (from the Hungarian word hus) that was famously the light cavalry for centuries in the different European armies. With their very light armor, often made of only cordage, they would ride by horse and plough thru the ranks of infantry on the battlefield. Often relying on speed and surprice instead of the heavy armour used but knights and other cavalry units.

Hence the armor on these vehicles is compared to battle tanks quite thin, seldom exceeding 40 mm of an aluminium alloy. This will only allow for a protection form small arms and artillery schrapnell. However, the whole goal is to use the speed and mobility to provide a sudden shock of firepower wherever needed and to avoid coming under direct fire from the enemy. At the same time, we never stay in one place, hence avoiding being the victim of incoming artillery.

In other words, these vehicles are providing a long range, high mobility option with a tremendous firepower that especially when used in "wolf packs" can have a dramatic positive effect on the battlefield. In addition, they are well adapted to offensive and aggressive recconaisance missions, and are expetionally deadly in ambush and delaying missions.

However, their light armor condemns them to always being on the move, and they are very poorly adapted for direct frontal assaults.

Their biggest problem is probably that people, when seeing their large guns, percives them as some sort of battle tank, and wants to compare them to such. This is absolutely not the case.

5) When training, what is the maximum distance at which you opened fire? And the maximum speed when firing on the move (if any)? What was the typical rate of fire?

In training! The maximum range for an AMX10RC (direct fire) is around 3200 meters, and you can with your digitally assisted system shoot with a 100% accuracy up to that range. Eventual misses will be due to a fuckup from the gunners siden.  For the AML90 and the ERC90 the range is slightly shorter and there is no digital assistance. The vehcile commander is here also both the loader and the "digital calculator".

This require some practical skills, and I use the opportunity to emphesize on the importance of having a trained crew. Your shooting efficency is solely relying on your crew training level. You can be in the best tank in the world, but if your training is poor and the crew on the other side are proffesionals? You are toast!!

6) Can you describe how the night fighting was conducted? Did you use night flares and/or IR sights?

Equipped with IR thermal cameras they are from a weapons perspective fully operational for night operations.

However, night operations are preferably long-range movements in safe areas. In the combat zone, the night is preferably done by covering the combat area with firepower from fixed positions while our protection reconnaissance teams are protecting the cannon bearing vehicles.

Mobile operations at night in a combat area, is something I would rather avoid.

7) Having served on different countries, what is your opinion on the debate "wheel vs tracks"? Was there any scenario/terrain where you hoped to have a vehicle with tracks?

In my opinion there is no debate. They are made for different purposes and cannot be compared. It’s basically not the same thing. It’s like comparing a Ferrari to a Land Rover. Makes no sense.

8) When performing exercises, what was the maximum distance you covered in a day? Were there any issues with the maintenance of the vehicles? What about the spare parts, any shortage?

Hahaha :-) There are always issues with maintenance on military vehicles. It all depends on how professional your crew is. It is your capacity to avoid maintenance problems, have parts available and be able to fix them quickly, that will be a good indication of your level of professionalism

9) In 1991 you served in Iraq. How did you prepare for the operation? Did you feel confident about facing the Iraqi Army (that used some French equipment)? Were you surprised about the pace/quick end of operations?

Obviously not confident at all. Iraq was just out of an 8 year long war with Iran, and we expected them to have a high level of professionalism.
But we prepared well, and the terrain (desert) was our area of expertise, this gave us the opportunity to completely overrun their defences.

I should add that the support from French combat helicopters and US attack planes (A10) was indeed a very good support.
It quickly became clear that they were not motivated for combat, and we ended up with a problem of what to do with all the prisoners, so the end was not a big surprise.

10) In your service you transitioned from the Cold War to local wars. Did you receive intelligence on likely opponents (T-72, AT missiles, IEDs)?

Sure. I was in a reconnaissance unit, and we constantly received training and information on both the structure, tactics, and equipment used by the enemy.
It’s a bit basic 101 training for such units and an important part of our training.

11) You also served when conscription was abolished, how did this affect your day to day life in the Legion?

There is and never was any conscript in the Legion, so this had no effect on us.

12) The French Army standard assault rifle was the FAMAS. What was your opinion of it? Did you like the bull up configuration? Did you have the chance to compare it to other types?

Sure. We received training on most available light weapons. AK47, M16, FAL, SIG, AG3, Steyer, etc… from that period.


Personally I am a big fan of the Bullpup type of weapons. Especially the FAMAS.
It's light and compact. This is very handy and this is  important for 99.99% of the time you are carrying it around.

Secondly it's very simple to maintain and supports very well to dropped or slung around in corners.

Finally it is very accurate with simple sights up to the required distance (300 metre), and is very stable in short or medium range automatic fire. In other words, he's a fantastic allrounder.

13) Did you have the train with personnel from other countries? What were your impressions? Did you use/evaluate other vehicles? Was there one that you liked or disliked in particular?

I trained with soldiers from many countries. Spain, Italy, Germany, US, and UK. In addition, there is a long list of African and Middleeasten countries. It was always a pleasant experience and something we always liked to do. You always learn something new.

Sometimes they do things differently, and maybe in a different way than us, but that is OK.
We have an unspoken rule in the Legion to never criticise other armies' military. Criticism is too easy and just for the weak. We look and learn. If it is good, we copy.

14) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

Nahh :-) There are obviously enough for a couple of books, but I am not a good storyteller.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with 2 former LanceR pilots
- Interview with a former GCI/WPN controller in the French Air Force
- Interview with a Chieftain veteran
- Interview with a former Leopard 2A4 gunner in the German Army
- Interview with 2 Romanian MiG-23 pilots
- Interview with a former M48 commander in the National Guard of the US
- Interview with a former M-84 commander
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former M60A2 "Starship" tanker
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Australia
- Interview with a former Type-59 tanker in the Army of Albania
- Interview with a former Leopard 2 tanker in the Army of the Netherlands
- Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot
- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Challenger tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with 2 former LanceR pilots

Two former LanceR pilots in the Romanian Air Force kindly accepted an interview for the blog. V. has already been interviewed on his experiences in MiG-29 and MiG-23, and participared in the development of the Sniper variant. His colleague P. was one of the top graduates of his promotion, and started flying MiG-21MF in 1978. In 1996 he joined the Supersonic Aviation Training Center in Bacau, and became an instructor in the LanceR.

1. What do you think were the strong and weak points of LanceR?

Strengths of modernisation:
- navigation accuracy
- aiming system
- ease of launching A/A missiles
- DASH 3 - Display and Sight Helmet
- mission preparation system
- mission debriefing  system

The upgrade has also changed things that seem somewhat insignificant but are of major importance such as the colour in the cockpit. If before the LanceR we were used to a crude and somewhat disturbing green, with the LanceR we had a much more comfortable colour, namely grey. The reorganization of the entire cabin (which was extremely crowded making it difficult to see into the front hemisphere), resulted in the release of the left and right side of the HUD display allowing a much improved and helpful visibility. As the aircraft and engine had a number of in-flight operating restrictions, these and other restrictions were managed by a verbal annunciator which made it easier to keep the flight and safety elements under control, allowing the pilot to concentrate on the combat aspects to a much greater extent. For the first time the Romanian pilot was confronted with what is now called SA (Situational Awareness), realising the tactical configuration in which the flight was taking place and trying to act accordingly.

The weak point remained as before the upgrade the low flight range.

2. Can you describe the upgrade in terms of:

a) Sensors performance (EL/M 2032M radar compared to the old one)

The MMRC was far, far above what we had on planes in the country at the time. The unmodernized MiG 21 had an RP21 radar that could hardly see a target at a distance of up to 20 km and missile launch was below 5 km.

V. The MiG 23 had an outdated multi-mode radar which did not define the intercept phases as the LanceR did and whose performance was relatively good but not compared to the Westerners. And the range was relatively good but the R23 missile we could not fired because the radar locked on the target only below 30 km.

The MiG 29 had an multi mode radar better than that on the MiG 23 for guiding the R-27 R in head on/rear hemisphere engagements .We could see 10 targets and locked one of them (STT- Single Target Track). Compared with the radar on the LanceR this one was far ,far behind it on all aspects. The Elta 2032 radar had A/A ,A/G and A/S submodes of operation and all the presentation of the information to the pilot was very easy to understand and friendly to operate. On the right side and down there was a block of info for the pilot related to the target- Type, closure speed, azimuth, presentation angle, altitude, etc.

b) Range of air to air missiles and other armament

R3S, K13M, R-60M, Phyton 3 and R-73.

c) Situational awareness

The term SA has come to be much better understood with the exploitation of the avionics on board the LanceR which incorporates enough information on the HSD (Horizontal Situation Display) page and not only . Specialized avionics engineers who became system engineers with the new on-board architecture were adjusting the information received from the specific departments to populate these subformats with information from which the pilot could understand the tactical situation and the threats to be taken into account in the execution of the mission. The FEBA - Front Edge Batlefield Area subformat accurately positions on this format the limits and combat ranges of the ground/air threats in the area of interest ensuring the pilot's survival in the context of these threats and their maximum range. This legacy is now perpetuated among F-16 pilots whose avionics are very similar to those of the LanceR.

d)  Ease of flight/automatization of the cockpit

HUD, DASH and HOTAS increased flight comfort, along with a host of MFCD/MFD navigation sub-  formats as well as cockpit ergonomics greatly improved flight quality and ease of flight.

3. MiG-21 LanceR was the world's first widely used operational aircraft which incorporated a HMD (Helmet Mounted Display System). Can you comment on its performance/advantages?

P. didn't have anything to compare it to but compared to the DASH 3 the following headsets were maybe just less heavy because he doesn't see what else he could add on the display. Maybe colourful presentations.

T. I can instead compare this helmet to the SLEM on the MiG-29 which was a simplistic and late 80's level targeting system that was extremely effective in conducting close air combat with easy launch of missiles intended for these missions - R-60M and R-73. In fact, on the 29 was a monocular that lowered to the eye level and with the help of sensors in the cockpit could direct the seeker head of the missile from the beam in the maximum field of view (+/- 20° and +/-45° respectively) preparing it much faster for launch without the need to manoeuvre the aircraft in the boresight. This was also the great advantage of this aircraft, an advantage maintained until the Westerners developed this system to today's level, which far exceeds the initial level achieved by the MiG29.

4. LanceR could use both Western and Eastern AA missiles like Python and R-73. Was there any preference of one over the other (stocks/effectiveness/useful life)?

The technical-tactical capabilities of the R-73 missile were superior, but it is difficult to establish how these qualities were really because in a close air combat there are many factors that must be taken into account, one more important than another and perhaps more decisive in the finality of the action.
And of course missiles were used whose expiry date was close to, if not exceeded, and this could have some influence on the conclusion here.

5. Was there any system that was planned to be integrated but left out (Data link, long range AA missiles, new cockpit glass as in MiG-21 Bison?

The LanceR had a much more advanced cockpit than the Bison. The BVR A/A missile was the only one that was still to be integrated, but it was dropped because the program was over budget. But the cockpit configuration and avionics architecture was far beyond the level of the Indian Bison.

But perhaps the most important and advanced was the data transfer system (DTS) which was done with a flash memory from which you transferred to the system everything you prepared in advance for the mission on the ground - from changing radio channels to the sequence of change of display management on the 2 MFCDs/MFDs almost anything you could manage in advance and transfer to the aircraft - navigation elements, combat employment, electronic warfare etc. Post flight analysis ( using VRGE  - Video Recording Ground Equipment ) was an extremely advanced way to interpret the flight and streamline each mission. And let's not forget that even close air combat was possible to be instrumented because upgrade included this aspect.

6. Some of the upgraded LanceR were M models. Was there any difference in performance once upgraded to LanceR (vs the MF)?

The engine on the MF variant was better and more powerful than the one on the M. That's why all the LanceR C variants were with Tumansky R13-300 MF engines which had 63.7 kN compared to the Tumansky R11-F2Sk 300 engines on the MiG21 M variant which had only 60.8 kN in afterburner mode.

7. What was the typical range of the Elta EL/M 2032 vs large bombers and fighters? When detecting fighter aircraft, could you see a difference between types with higher and lower RCS (F-15 vs F-16)?

P. recalls that on larger targets (such as the IL-28) they also appeared at distances greater than the 150 km maximum range of the MFCD intercept format. For small ones with a small RCS (3 m² like the MiG 21) the target could be seen at distances of 60 - 70 km at altitudes of 4000 - 6000 m and towards 80-85 km at higher altitudes.

V. When I was in the upgrade program the Israeli pilot who flight tested the performance of the radar asked me to fly as a target in a hilly region at heights of 3000-5000 m and told me from what distance he could see me. I was pleasantly surprised when he told me he could see me at 70-75 km. Obviously I was comparing the radar capabilities of the MiG 29 and was pleased to find that the radar on the 21 was far beyond the capabilities of the 29 version 9-12 we were flying.

8. What was the most challenging mission/sortie you flew?

A weather search (before each flight day/night it was customary to do a weather search of the flight area to determine which variant of the flight plan to fly).

Usually this was done by two-seater aircraft and at that time I was with the regretted N.S. I had seen enough heavy weather before but not over such a large area and with turbulence and precipitation of such intensity to freeze the blood in your veins....

9. How did the reliability of the new systems compared with the old one? Were there any initial/teething issues with the upgrade?

P. remembers that there were some problems with the converters that had reliability problems in the beginning.

V. As far as I remember at the beginning these converters were imported from China where they were used on the J-7 variants they were flying but apparently it was not the best choice and then they were replaced by some produced by Auxilec from France and the problems solved themselves. The integrator did not compromise on flight safety issues.

10. How many hours did you typically flew per year?

P. More and never less than 90 hours.

V. Compared to us, they flew a lot more. We were flying 40-50 hours at 29 when we still had enough reserves and spares. As they got shorter and shorter, the number of flying hours decreased so that eventually the number of flying hours decreased that we were forced to divide the pilots flying this aircraft into two groups.

11. What was the maximum speed/altitude you reached?

The LanceR variant no longer used the High Altitude Helmet and the High Altitude Compensation Suit (CCI) and had a maximum flight ceiling limited to 14500 m and a maximum speed of M=1.8. For flight safety reasons I did not exceed them.

12. How fast could you take off in a scramble?

Because we don't equip ourselves as we used to with the High Altitude Helmet and the High Altitude Compensation Suit when scramble (QRA) was done, the time was around 6-8 minutes and this was for the alignment of the navigation system.

13. What about setting up a logistical chain from Israel? Was it complicated? Did the spare situation improve following the upgrade?

There was never any question of making a logistical supply chain with Israel. There was no need. Very professionally, the equipment had a very good MTBF (as Elbit had made known) compared to that on board the non-upgraded aircraft. So the only things we could always think of to have were tires, batteries and seat cartridges as we had fuel for flying.

14. Were there other countries interested in the upgrade? At that time Aerostar also overhauled Croatian MiG-21s

Other users' intentions were but they only wanted small very small upgrades and others gave up. Some only added a transponder and another radio but only for a small number of aircraft. And maybe we didn't do enough to make potential customers, whoever they were, more interested in such an upgrade.

15. Did the upgrade allow more hours to be flown due to easier maintenance/higher reliability of avionics?

Generally no. The concept of avionics operation has required changes in the way avionics are used but I don't think that modernization has led to an increase in flight hours, but it has changed the way maintenance and ongoing avionics related work is performed by adding new concepts such as today's Operational Levels O , Intermediate level I and Depot level D ….and many more..

But as I have already said, the reliability of the new equipment was far superior to the classic one and this had an overwhelming importance in the good training of the LanceR pilots.

16. Is there any anecdote you would like to share before finishing the interview?

These are some of the best anecdotes ...me in the front cockpit of a LanceR B., or in the prototype of A/G variant sn 9809 and a DASH 3…  and some pictures with memories related to LanceR.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former GCI/WPN controller in the French Air Force
- Interview with a Chieftain veteran
- Interview with a former Leopard 2A4 gunner in the German Army
- Interview with 2 Romanian MiG-23 pilots
- Interview with a former M48 commander in the National Guard of the US
- Interview with a former M-84 commander
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former M60A2 "Starship" tanker
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Australia
- Interview with a former Type-59 tanker in the Army of Albania
- Interview with a former Leopard 2 tanker in the Army of the Netherlands
- Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot
- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Challenger tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a former GCI/WPN controller in the French Air Force

A former GCI/WPN controller in the French Air Air Force kindly accepted an interview for the blog. T served in ground control centers as well as the E-3F during the Cold War and

Hello T., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the French Air Force?

Hello Alejandro thanks a lot for your interest. My name is T. and were in service in the French Air force (FAF) for 30 years as GCI/WPNs (Ground Control Intercept/Weapon Officer). That means I were in military control center, tactical center and for sometimes in E-3F. From 1994 to 2000 I was instructor in formation center at Mont de Marsan AFB, specialist in air materiel, weapons systems and electronic warfare.  After 2000 I joigned Tours AFB as GCI Leader in operational sqn, and at least chief of the standardization cell, in charge of instruction and formation of the center. I had the ability to agree professional licenses for example Air Police on helicos (I spent few month in Guyana for that!!).  As GCI I had medical aptitude to fly on every french aircraft and specially two seat fighters. It’s so that I have a lot of hours on Ajet, MirF1B and 2000B. Same for transport and helicos. The only one I never fly in was the Jaguar E, with regrets.

Can you provide an example of what your role as GCI/WPN consists of?

To have a good response it’s first important to explain the controllers history according the aircraft history in the French air force.  I enter in service in 1979 with Mirage IIIE and Mirage F1C. At this time we had to provide close control, that means to guide the fighter on target. It was logical according the fighter radar which could only do this type of pursuit. In 1984 the air force received the first Mirage 2000 and for us it was a big step, but in the same control procedure. The difference was in the range of detection and so different tactics. 4 years after a new version adapted for low level tracking entered in service, offering new capabilities. I spent my master controller licence with this type of aircraft : Mirage 2000 RDI. Affected to Nice Ctl Station I had the opportunity to participate at a meeting with some 5th sqn’s pilotes of Orange AFB to define the basic communications standard using the RDI. Few years after we had to participate at the 1st Gulf War, our RDI engaged with coalition on AlAhsa AFB. I think it was the big turn to our speciality as GCI. Because we had to apply NATO procedures in a real war environment. After that all became different. And the last thing which definitely changed our control method was the last update of our Mirage, the -5. In French air force pilot-controller is a real duo, because we are the 360° around surveillance operator for the pilot. The GCI is dedicated to the threat alert outside the fighter radar envelope. Today nations using GCI consider the same thing, it’s so that we can provide situation awareness for all and participating for us at big NATO exercises is the best thing to accurate our methods.

We have to consider today loose ctle for main big missions, broadcast ctl in specific environment (low level for example or jamming environment) and at least close ctl for police mission.    

When you are guiding a fighter in an operation, how much autonomy does the pilot have over the GCI? This was a widely discussed topic during the Cold War.

The pilot is under GCI even during the planified slot or until short fuel for recovery or no weapons. The difficulties today are in the coordinations with all the assets and specialy when you have two ctl agencies working in the same airspace, for example an E3 and a ground center. It’s so that the comms must be clear and precise between the GCI sqn leader and the FA (Fighter allocator) in E3 (or E2). For heavy exercises we have to planify specific crews for recovery to shed the GCI. It’s so that for a big one (Tigermeet for example) you have to consider the control center is in maximum configuration.

When detecting a fighter, was there much difference in the distance at which non stealthy fighters were detected (MiG-21/F-16/F-15/Mirage 2000 -some are supposed to have lower RCS than others-) by E-3F?

No there is not a big difference, because you track a signal according pulse doppler effect. But the plane is not important, what you detect in fact is the radar system or electronic system of the plane (same for ground or naval systems). It’s so that you have a EO on board (Electronic Operator). It was a little bit difficult when you have a classical plane without electronic. The case of Air Policing missions is a good example and the difficulty to track a Cessna or Robin !!! But we did.

What was the longest mission you carried out in an E-3F? What do you think is the limit for a crew?

For me the longest were during ex-Yougoslavia conflict. I had the chance to participate at some flights. France often had holding pattern over hungaria, as US were over Adriatic see. For us it was very long and hard for personal on board. You had to be at the AFB 3 hours before for brief and prepare mission, after that take off and direct flight to hungaria. Then holding and mission and at last recovery and debrief. So in resume for a 12 hours slot, you did 15 hours in flight plus 5 hours on the ground. So you can easily imagine for a night flight. And why 12 hours, because you had 2 E3 for 24 hours and take over on holding. For all, the most difficult were night flights because the day before you had to sleep, and for some an helping with sleeping pills. And when you did flights and flights, it was hard. A bad souvenir this conflict for mission and for health.

When operating QRA (Quick Reaction Alerts) how fast could the fighters take off? Is there any difference between the different types (F1/2000/Rafale)?

In France it’s a question of time. Peace alert is in 7 or 15 minutes. And in case of you can request 2 minutes, that means aircraft is on runway ready to take off, pilot inside. You can also use a classic flight (performing training, navigation, refuelling) for a police mission, in condition the pilot has aptitude for QRA. But in this case the aircraft is not armed. Very useful for recognition mission only or a little assistance, the QRA staying home.

In France the QRA is also dedicated to real assistance. All changed after the twin towers disaster in 2011. We had to modify the missions, and train pilots to perform assistance on big civilian airports. It’s so that we did a lot of recovery on Roissy or Orly for example. We also did a lot of escort on US or Canadian flights just after take off from these airports. Today French squadrons continue this type of exercise.    

Can you comment on the deployment of link systems like Link-16? How did they improve mission efficiency/situational awareness?

In early 90’s France has developed a specific link called “teleaffichage” and dedicated to M2000. This link was only used by GCI to give orders or informations to aircraft without radio. In the same time France received first E3F and link 16. Our link was inadapted and not useful, it’s so that we stopped it. With E3F arrival our surveillance operators had to learn and adapt their job at this new environment. Our technicians spent lot of hours to integrate this link in our data environment, but they did. And to update our method to work (specially SO) because they didn’t work in a E3.

The link 16 was important so for them wich had to identify all aircrafts in national airspace and during exercise to establish the good identity. Before to leave Air Force the 1st CAOC was in service with all datas and all links integrated. It was very interesting to have a good vision of the airspace over Lybia during Harmattan MSN, E3F rotating near Sardinia. And for another example during Tigermeet at Landivisiau NAS in 2008, it was important to have a long range alert. At least a specific phase was the recovery because E3F was not allowed for handover patrol to approach, and so, necessary for us to identify the good patrol for the recovery, thank you the link 16.

Can you comment on the improvement of electronics during all this time in terms of weight/reliability? E-2C old computer in the Forward Equipment Compartment weighed 3,000 lb and had 64K of internal memory!

I cannot really answer this one because if I did some flights I made a lot of exchanges in simulator to train the inboard controllers according NATO rules. The work in E2 is really different from a E3 because the operator has to manage the situation but all about, in, out, recovery, handovers. It’s so that he is called “radar operator”. Today you have an E3 controller in exchange with E2 squadron. Same with navy on carrier Charles de Gaulle.
 
Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

I remember the old exercises where we had possibility to fly supersonic and of course the results on public infrastructures, some anecdotes over Tchad or Gulf but the most incredible for me was the police mission on 2007 june 21st during Salon du Bourget.

For this meeting a crisis cell is activated and in 2007 our CRC (Tours) was leader (logical because in our geographic area of responsibility). I was GCI Leader with 6 crews performing surveillance and control because we had activated axis with helos or slow moving plane to intercept slow traffic. I also had E3 rotating and so linked with it (Fighter Allocator) to coordinate operations. And the show was going well. Until the end of morning where Belgian Control phone me to advise a slow moving aircraft, civilian, coming from Hamburg were flying over Belgian airspace without control inbound France. It was intercepted by F16 and didn’t answer to them. Well note.

Few minutes later Reims approach called me “can you see north my position, squaking XX, these are f16 in my area and the slow mover is unknown, F16 go back home and return to Florennes”. I advise my squadron cmder and decide to scramble te QRA. Few minutes and the M2000 take off from Creil direct to intercept the Turbomooney, with 2 persons on board. The Mirage is on left and the two passengers are happy to see a military aircraft, performing visual signals but occupied to continue their travel to La Rochelle. They don’t listen the frequencies, don’t answer, nothing, they fly.

But they fly directly to Le Bourget where a show is in progress, and of course a complex area in place with SAM for example. I decide to engage a patrol of Tucano performing north axis. We proceed and the Tucano join the couple of aged persons always enjoying the visits of military aircrafts. The pilot in rear back seat has instruction panels, show them, but nothing. We are entering Le Bourget area and according the track they are going for the pleasure of public to overflight the show. And they do it. I had time before by phone to stop the show for safety. What is the next ?

The Tucano call me short of fuel, and Mirage 2000C too because hard to maintain a low speed. I decide to call Tours App for request : “hello, are you waiting for a patrol of Alphajet going for training on axis ?” “yes in 5 minutes” “Ok ask leader if he has agreement for air policing” and the response arrive “yes”. Few minutes later the leader contact us to proceed on the tourists. We intercept them and try to give order to follow the alphajet. For that I decide to use the emergency frq 121.5, I hope he was listening. Nothing. And suddenly a miracle coming from the sky.
 
A Lufthansa pilot who was listening the frq understand what happened and decide to make relay on the frq. I give it instructions in English and the pilot relay in german to the tourist pilot, which understand 2 hours and half after. The little german aircraft decide to follow the alphajet and to land at Tours AFB where french Gendarmerie were waiting for them. The two old persons have been arrested and interrogated for: crossing 2 countries border without radio, overflying restricted areas, non cooperation according police measures. What I know, the day after these tourists were free, the aircraft was requisitioned, the pilot driving licence sent to german ambassy. The pilot has been sentenced in Germany his pilot licence deleted.
After that we make a big return of experience to modify our procedures. And one thing is sure, after that I did a big lunch.

For the story :

https://www.rtl.be/art/info/monde/europe/un-avion-de-tourisme-allemand-intercepte-par-un-mirage-se-pose-a-tours-7417.aspx

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a Chieftain veteran
- Interview with a former Leopard 2A4 gunner in the German Army
- Interview with 2 Romanian MiG-23 pilots
- Interview with a former M48 commander in the National Guard of the US
- Interview with a former M-84 commander
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former M60A2 "Starship" tanker
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Australia
- Interview with a former Type-59 tanker in the Army of Albania
- Interview with a former Leopard 2 tanker in the Army of the Netherlands
- Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot
- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Challenger tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a Chieftain veteran

A former Chieftain crewman has accepted an interview for the blog. J. served in Chieftain, Challenger, and Challenger 2, and last year he acceped an interview on his Challenger experience (link). So far he is the only veteran tanker I have talked to that he used the multifuel capacity of a tank engine.

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Chieftain tanks?

Firstly, I have to admit that I started my career in 1987 for the 16/5th The Queens Royal Lancers, a reconnaissance regiment with CVR (T). I trained on chieftain along side the Chally 1 before our amalgamation with the MBT regiment the 17/21st Lancers. Our new regiment was equipped with Chally 1.

I first saw, (and heard) a Chieftain in January 1987 in Catterick (where all recruit gunnery training was being carried out at the time). One can never forget that distinctive tubular roar as they headed off the tank park in the rain and off into the misty Yorkshire dales to scare the sheep. On their return, the drivers (who had to drive ‘opened up’), always emerged from the cab, faces wrapped in goggles and ‘headover’ scarf, steaming damp from the ample rainwater that poured on them from the turret sill every time they braked! Protected by army waterproof overalls, affectional known as a ‘crisp packet’.
The tanks strong points were its accuracy, and being able to get rounds off accurately even if every system in the turret had failed.

It's weak points (according to seasoned drivers) were having to change the clutch springs, and its ability to drop it’s oil and stop at the most inopportune moments! Something that struck fear in any commander taking part in televised VIP parades!

In hot weather the turret batteries behind the operator in the bustle used to get hot and occasionally gas off. To cool them down you could wedge open the battery hatches on the turret roof. The operator/ Loader could then see daylight from his position via the hatches.  The trouble is, you didn’t want to do this on a live range with infantry behind you! Oh how they loved sneakily shooting the tanks on an assault! Because of this, we never put anything nice in the thin side bins like sleeping bags and weapons!

3. When training, what was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Much the same as the Chally 1, (after all, it was pretty much a chieftain in new clothes).

We generally trained from emergency short range targets at about 600m, firing on the move at 1000m to 1800-200m. Occasionally we would do long range shoots using the Quadrant Fire Control (QFC) at around 5km+. You could throw them further but ranges were hard to find and the commander, or someone, had to physically see the target impact and make corrections. This awesome simple bit of kit attached to the gun next to the gunner (which consisted of two rotating drums/ wheels representing the angle of sight, the range to target and a bubble level), was worth its weight in gold, but sadly not included in the Chally 2. It’s still in use on the Scorpion 90’s in Indonesia as I witnessed in 2021.

4. Chieftain tanks use a human autoloader and 3 piece ammunition. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you used the different ammunition bins?

As has probably been mentioned before, officially it was 6-8 seconds but a well prepared loader could get an average of 4 seconds for at least 6 to 8 rounds. After that, retrieving rounds (as the gunner laid onto target) became slower as the 6 round ready tray was empty and other rounds and charges were in ‘slower’ locations. It was actually an incorrect drill to pull the loaders safety shield closed (that completes the firing circuit) before retrieving his next round, however it speeded things up to get the round AFTER the shield as long as you didn’t go behind the gun while doing so.

5. What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)?

This depended on the mission and the type of tank you were in, command tanks typically had less ammo to naturally accommodate extra radio equipment in the turret bustle.

A troop would be issued some measure of smoke which was given or spread to vehicles relevant to a task on a mission. If you were expected to face heavy armour then we would be heavy on the APFSDS. During my last operation we were actually carrying blue SH/P (a practice round full of concrete). This was used to good effect in urban areas for specific targets causing minimal collateral damage.

6. In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

I can’t recall anything being really delicate on the Chieftain, it was pretty robust and “soldier proof”. If anything broke on the move, there wasn’t much that couldn’t be fixed with gaffer tape and green string until you got attended too by the REME following close behind.

7. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

Some would say, not far as it regularly broke down! To be fair, a good attentive, well-trained crew would do well. It’s for this reason a regiments reputation was always on the line when performing on ranges and exercises. Stories, scores, and rumours flew around the higher echelons of the Royal Armoured Corps and filter down to the lower ranks, resulting in much toilet wall humour wherever we congregated!  

8. The Leyland L60 engine was an issue in early Chieftain models. Were the problems solved in the variants you used?

I personally have no real experience with the ‘bottom half’ of the Chieftain as I converted on my drivers course on a Challenger 1.

9. One of the theoretical advantages of the Leyland L60 was that it was multifuel. Did you ever use this feature in training or manoeuvres? Is there any procedure that needs to be followed if different fuels are used (clean filters, purge components)?

In the Balkans, (on Chally 1, a different engine, I know) the temperature in the mountains got down to -24. The squadron of tanks were stored in a huge barely heated tent. We had to start the engines every 4 hours in a failed attempt to stop the diesel turning to sloppy paste. In the end we drained the fuel bags and filled up with aviation fuel delivered from a nearby RAF fuel dump. Eventually, with the GUE (Generator Engine) running, we got them started without any mechanical wizardry.

10. Chieftain used a Horstmann suspension, while other tanks of its era used torsion bars. What is your opinion on its advantages and disadvantages?

Sorry, I wouldn’t know, (me being a turret monster! However, I’ve helped change a few CVR(T) torsion bars and it was a bit of a lengthy task, also the bars have to go through the hull interior where the turret cage sits, so this loss of space has to be accounted for in the design.

11. What was the maximum speed you managed to get in a Chieftain? And in reverse?

It was quite slow when compared to modern tanks, around 20-25mph/ 32Kmh cross country and a little faster on the roads. In reverse, you never wanted to go too fast, unless you were sure your driver knew 100% his left from his right!

12. Did you practise NBC situations? What was the approach? How did it affect the crew performance (especially loader)?

We practiced NBC conditions quite often on exercise, and a lot during Desert Storm on Chally 1!

Comms were sometimes an issue when trying to understand the warblings of radio operators talking through a respirator microphone! Both Chieftain and Chally 1 were issued a large hand held microphone (like the sort sports commentators used) it had similar 1920’s sound quality and was never used. But during regular tool and equipment checks on the tank park, (where all equipment is laid out and accounted for), when this item was called out, the man closest would always pick it up, put it to his mouth and in his best Richard Burton voice shout “Broadsword Calling Danny Boy!”

The operator had the best time of it closed down in the turret, with room to stamp about, sit or slouch. The rest of the crew were pretty much stuck in their seats. The commander got to elevate the gun and stretch his legs over the breech ring. Gunners stamped their feet and drivers slept.

There was a time in Canada in 1996, during the Mad Cows paranoia when all troops (eating beef product rations) were forced to crap into double lined mylar bags and save them on the vehicle, (so as not to contaminate the prairie) then hand them over to an unimpressed soldier at Replens who suffered much jibing and mickey taking! The art of rotating through to the operator’s side and depressing the gun for privacy to take a dump was good practice for NBC conditions!

Despite being in mylar bags, there was a definite aroma emanating from the external bin where they were eventually stored!

13. Some Chieftain tanks were deployed in Berlin. Did you consider urban scenarios in your training?

Yes, but not predominantly. We all had our pre-planned fighting positions to engage the masses of the Soviet vanguards in surrounding fields and forests, that offered a modicum of manoeuvrability, and as far away as possible from any major enemy urban strikes.

They were called our “crash out” positions, or in Reconnaissance, jokingly known as our “grave positions” with a life expectancy of 20 minutes!

Urban expertise came much later by necessity, from a new generation of troops, in the busy streets of Basra and Al Amarah.

14. Chieftain was operated by other countries (Oman, Kuwait, Iran). Did you get any feedback from their use or reports from combat experiences?

I knew a ‘Kings Own Hussar’ who served under the Sultan of Oman. He had nothing but good things to say about his time there.

I found that when oil rich countries bought our tanks, they always got nice upgrades like a .50 Cal pintle mount that the MOD wouldn’t consider.

15. Vickers developed more advanced variants of Chieftain that were never bought by the British Army (Khalid). Did you have a chance to familiarise yourself with them?

No, unfortunately not, I just read journals of the time. I am now lucky enough to be in a job that tests and sells to such countries, so I still get to play with the latest ‘big boys toys’ at 55 yrs!

16. Do you think Chieftain could have been developed more or it was better to move into the Challenger series?

I believe it served well for its era. The Chally 2 was a massive leap in the right direction. But we all live in hope that BAE and Rheinmetall don’t bleed the taxpayer dry with the upgrades.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Leopard 2A4 gunner in the German Army
- Interview with 2 Romanian MiG-23 pilots
- Interview with a former M48 commander in the National Guard of the US
- Interview with a former M-84 commander
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former M60A2 "Starship" tanker
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Australia
- Interview with a former Type-59 tanker in the Army of Albania
- Interview with a former Leopard 2 tanker in the Army of the Netherlands
- Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot
- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Challenger tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes