Talk:Wild Weasel

Actually

Actually, the follow-on to the F-100 Wild Weasel was the F-105F with some modifications. The F-105F (originally a trainer) Wild Weasel was subsequently heavily modified into the -G model which came later. 15.252.0.75 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2004

External Link Removal

Rebelguys2 - you deleted the link to the only period technical analysis of the F-4G Weasel now available on the web. In fact I think it is the only analysis of its kind altogether.

The party who put the link up complained to me about this.

I understand that you labelled my very fine work on this topic as spam, which candidly, I find rather offensive. Are you a former Weasel EWO?

Having read the WP guidelines on what constitutes appropriate material, the link qualifies.

I would like you to reinstate the link ASAP.

Regards

C —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ckopp (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Big upgrade to page

In responce to a request at Wikiproject Aircraft. Guapovia 08:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The "mission tactics" portion is full of "conventional wisdom," much of it incomplete and inaccurate, and to my thinking unacceptable in quality. It requires a major overhaul, with sources.--Buckboard 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mission Tactics

From the article: "... Failure to visually see them coming at three times fighter cruise speed results in mission failure."

Is this a "mission failure" because the crews could not identify the location of the SAM launch site, or a "mission failure" because the crew is now dead?

Most likely due to the crew being dead due to not seeing (and thus, not avoiding) the incoming missile. It is a bit unclear, so I'll change the wording. --Raguleader 04:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wild Weasels in media?

Does anybody think this section would be worth adding? The only example I can think of off the top of my head would be Flight of the Intruder. --Raguleader 04:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

WW tail code

The statement that Wild Weasel aircraft can be identified by the WW tail code is true but misleading. WW is the tail code for the 35th Fighter Wing based at Misawa AB, Japan; currently flying the F-16CJ. Other units flying the F-16CJ in the Wild Weasel/SEAD role include the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw AFB, SC (tail code SW), the 52nd Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem AB, Germany (SP), the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home AFB, ID (MO), and the 27th Fighter Wing at Cannon AFB, NM (CC)... just to name a few.

Was that always the case? All Vietnam-era Thuds and all F-4Gs I've ever seen had the WW tail code. Was this because they all belonged to the 35th FW? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. The 35th became a dedicated WW wing after Vietnam War, but it was not the sole SEAD unit. (The F-105Gs had a variety of tail codes just in 1972 alone. The 388th's 17th WWS used JB [a re-coding from ZB of the 6010th Wild Weasel Squadron, which had previously been part of the 12TFS, 18th TFW at Kadena--"J" being the base code for the 388th, Z for the 18th]. The 561st TFS of the 23rd TFW at McConnell AFB sent a Weasel detachment to Korat in April 1972 where they changed their tail codes from MD to WW--but the 17th did not change. During Linebacker and Linebacker II the Weasels carried the tail markings of both. The F-4C Weasel 4's were also at Korat in the fall of 72, and their tail code was ZG.) The WW became the standard markings for the 37th TFW's F-105Gs after the war when the 561st was attached to it at George AFB as the Wild Weasel training school. When it was inactivated to resurface in a few years as the F-117 wing) the codes were inherited by its operational sister wing, the 35th (which had been using GA) and later to the F-4Gs that replaced the Thuds. In addition to the 52nd TFW, the 90th TFS of the 3rd TFW at Clark AFB was the WW unit for PACAF after the 67th went to F-15s and bore the tail code PN.--Buckboard 07:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The actual number of F-4E Airframes converted to F-4G Standard is higher than stated in the article

I am trying to find an article which stated that there were in fact 134 F-4G Wild Weasels in total, not 116. 18 extra F-4E's were converted due to attrition. Does anyone know this? NiceDoggie 12:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Globalize?

Before I tag this article with globalize template, were there any similar planes used by non-US armies? British, French, Russian... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Equipment: current

Your information regarding the current role of the F-16CJ is inaccurate. You need to research it. The USAF does not employ weapons systems officers in the back seat of F-16Ds. There are many reasons that the F-16CJ can do the SEAD mission better than the F-4G, employing in a 4 ship is not one of them. Check out www.F-16.net for links to F-16 information.

61.37.245.198 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Jim

561st Tactical Fighter Squadron in Vietnam

One of my old outfits was the 561st TFS, flying the F-105's. We had a mobility alert at something like the a.m. and showed up on the flightline ready to fly to Vietnam. The Colonel had already told me to keep my motorcycles off base and I was ready for some action. The 561st participated in Linebacker I, in which Giap's Easter Offensive was stopped. Giap lost 40,000 troops from his invading army of 200,000. Giap was fired and was never allowed to be a General again. The 561st received the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Combat "V" for valor. Giap had been the General who had defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu. Later, in Linebacker II, the North Vietnamese were soundly defeated and compelled to sign the Paris Peace Accords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.230.156 (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible Source Addition

Interested son of a Weasel, I'm curious whether a link or mention to the History Channel's feature of the Vietnam Era Wild Weasel missions may be an appropriate addition. They were shown in an episode of Suicide Missions, and while touchy as a memory, the episode highlights just how dangerous their hard work really was (something I feel the article does not quite capture as fully as it could in its current state, imo), which was of course very dangerous. Also, it's interesting to note that many viewers/visitors out there would likely have had family members or friends featured in the show.

It happens to not be on record at all, anywhere, on the History Channel's website, something I have made a strong complaint to them about. It is still able to be cited on Amazon as well as briefly mentioned in the Tv guide of its time, but as a source, certainly, it would not want to be seen as simply making a sale. However, the casualty reports and reasons why were well-covered in a respectful way in the show, a very thorough presentation, and so I'm 50/50 as to its relevance. Should any notes on that or the topics it contains be added to this article?

Here is the Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Missions-Weasels-History-Channel/dp/B000F6ZCLG

WillJonassen (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a source unless it is cited, so I added as further reading. Glrx (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

WILD WEASEL: Sentence concerning 16 Crew under WW I should appear in the following paragraph under WW III; the sixteen were: Brand, Davis, Newsom, Pemberton, Rock, Singer, Gilroy, Hartzell, Larson, Maier, Martin, Marts, Metcalf, Pyle, Reinbold, Sanvick

....source is Metcalf76.7.106.210 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)plumalley

C CLASS

If the issue is historical ACCURACY I point out that actual audio recordings of the 1967 missions appear nine pages down noted as "Audio Recordings" ....see WW. Source: combat recordings Plumalley (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)plumalley

F-35 claims unsourced

There is a section which seems to consist of all manner of unsourced claims that the F-35 will be the next SEAD aircraft:

The F-35 Lightning II is slated to gradually replace these aircraft for various air-to-ground roles, including SEAD, beginning with its introduction in 2016. Its stealth capabilities promise a significant increase in effectiveness against air-defense radars, though to maintain its lowest radar signature, its payload capacity would be limited to the internal weapons bays, reducing the number of missile site attacks per sortie. However, it can carry more or larger air to ground weapons internally than even the F-22 and is more advanced in a ground attack capacity, potentially making it the best manned aircraft for destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses.[9]

In fact, the one reference quoted tends to work against this claim. I can find almost nothing which shows that the F-35 will be performing SEAD missions at any time in the future. It can carry the AGM-88 but not internally, which would kind of defeat the purpose, IMHO. Flanker235 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The F-35 will actually be doing more DEAD (destruction of enemy air defences) than traditional SEAD. Some consider DEAD to be a subset of SEAD. Scottgwalker83 (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wild Weasel Society

I would like to add a small section for the Society of the Wild Weasels, the Charitable Veterans' Organization for current and former Weasels. The Website is at: www.wildweasels.org I'll hold off a couple weeks to determine consensus. Jlr3001 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)