Aeroplane Icons F-4 Phantom

ILLUSTRATED

F-4 PHANTOM THE ST. LOUIS SLUGGER

Icons No 17

£7.95

ICONS 001 Phantom.indd 2

07/01/2015 10:11

when you take out a 1 year or Direct Debit Subscription to ICONS

MAKE HUGE SAVINGS UK BI-ANNUALLY DIRECT DEBIT

Just £19.99 bi-annually, visit the website or call for details

12 FOR THE PRICE OF 11

UK

12 issues

£42.93

Europe

12 issues

€64.99

USA

12 issues

£84.99

Rest of the World

12 issues

£54.99

011/15

PRE-PAY OFFERS

2 E A S Y W AY S T O PAY Order online at

www.keypublishing.com/shop

OR

Call UK 01780 480404 Overseas +44 1780 480404 Lines open 9.00am - 5.30pm GMT

F-4 PHANTOM

T

he Phantom’s story is a complicated one that covers a diversity of roles, a long history of development, and a seemingly endless record of operational activity around the world. It is therefore, quite surprising to note that the Phantom came into being as a relatively low-key project that promised to deliver nothing more than a simple successor to the design that had preceded it. The Phantom was to be a new jet for the United States Navy, representing a simple step in fighter development, slotted between the sleek F-8 Crusader and the all-capable F-14 Tomcat that

would follow it. But history and circumstances saw the Phantom become a warplane that was far more significant. It was the United States Air Force that changed the Phantom’s story when the Air Force realised just what a potent machine the Navy’s new fighter had turned out to be. They reluctantly took an interest in the Phantom and ultimately embraced it, turning the Phantom into a fighter, bomber, reconnaissance platform, electronic warfare machine, and more. The Phantom blossomed into a multi-role warplane that had the capability and performance to take-on the world, and the world duly took notice.

Phantoms were exported across the globe, as far afield as Australia and Japan, and to Britain’s Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The Phantom proved its capabilities in the skies over South East Asia and went on to forge a second life in a variety of roles, both in the USA and with export customers thousands of miles away from the St. Louis factory from where the magnificent machine had first emerged. By any standards the F-4 Phantom was a truly formidable machine. Tim McLelland Series Editor

For more than a century of aviation history and for further titles in this series, visit

CONTENTS 4 BIRTH OF A LEGEND The United States Navy seeks a new multi-role fighter for the 1960s

40 THE SPECTRE OF SUCCESS The United States Air Force adopts the Navy’s Phantom

76 ON HER MAJESTY’S SERVICE The United Kingdom buys America’s new warplane

22 NAUTICAL NASCENCE The Phantom enters service with the US Navy and Marine Corps

58 PHANTOM DESCRIBED The McDonnell F-4 explored in detail

94 INTERNATIONAL ACCLAIM The F-4 Phantom in service around the world

Aeroplane Icons: F-4 PHANTOM Editor Tim McLelland. Design and Layout Paul Silk. Publisher and Managing Director Adrian Cox. Executive Chairman Richard Cox. Commercial Director Ann Saundry. Distribution Seymour Distribution Ltd +44 (0)20 7429 4000. Printing Warners (Midlands) PLC, The Maltings, Manor Lane, Bourne, Lincs PE10 9PH. ISBN 978-1-909786-17-2 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part and in any form whatsoever is strictly prohibited without the prior permission of the Publisher. Whilst every care is taken with submissions, the Publisher cannot be held responsible for any loss or damage incurred. All items submitted for publication are subject to our terms and conditions which are regularly updated without prior notice and downloadable from www.keypublishing.com. We are unable to guarantee the bona fides of any of our advertisers. Readers are strongly recommended to take their own precautions before parting with any information or item of value, including, but not limited to, money, manuscripts, photographs or personal information in response to any advertisements within this publication.

Published by Key Publishing Ltd, PO Box 100, Stamford, Lincs PE19 1XQ. Tel: +44 (0) 1780 755131. Fax: +44 (0) 1780 757261. Website: www.keypublishing.com

Page 3 Phantom.indd 3

F-4 PHANTOM |

3

05/01/2015 19:34

Birth of a Legend The United States Navy seeks a new multi-role fighter for the 1960s

T

he creation of the Phantom is undoubtedly due to the persistence and determination of James Smith McDonnell, founder of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. With his design team led by Herman Barkey, Dave Freeburg and Davis Lewis (a future President of the company), he embarked upon a completely new project to produce an aeroplane that would be ideally suited to the future needs of the US Navy and one that would therefore be irresistible to the Navy’s chiefs in Washington. Wisely, the design team chose to go directly to the men of the United States Navy and ask them what they needed. In fact, they even went further

than this and discussed the project with everyone who was likely to be involved with it, exploring the project with defence chiefs and service men who would have to fly and maintain the aircraft, even talking to pilot’s wives to determine what they thought their husbands really wanted, rather than what they merely professed to want whilst talking in front of their colleagues. The McDonnell team slowly assembled a picture of what their new project should aim to achieve and by the end of 1953 they had drawn-up the basics of a new design known as the F3H-G, a direct development of the Demon fighter. They opted to create an aircraft that could

perform primarily as an attacker, rather than a defender. This was in response to the feedback that came from the US Navy that had indicated a clear preference for something that was much more than just another fast jet with a gun. Specifically, the Navy expressed a need for an aircraft more akin to the venerable Skyraider, a slow and outwardly unremarkable machine that was of course immensely strong, powerful and reliable, and capable of carrying a huge amount of ordnance. The aeroplane that emerged was the F3H-C, a single-seat and long-range fighter-bomber, equipped with APQ-50 radar, four 20mm cannon and no less

Successor to the F2H Banshee, McDonnell’s F3H Demon swept-wing fighter is seen here in prototype form after roll-out at the company’s St. Louis factory in 1951. The Demon was the aircraft for which the Phantom II was designed as a direct successor. Not surprisingly, the Phantom retained some of the Demon’s key design features. (Photo: Aeroplane) 4

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 4

05/01/2015 20:47

F-4 Phantom

than 11 external hard point stations for ordnance. McDonnell proposed that up to seven different forward fuselage designs could be created to mate with the rest of the aircraft, each designed to perform a specific role such as single-seat attack (with four 20mm cannon), twin-seat all-weather interception, reconnaissance and more, and although the concept seemed almost absurd at the time, it did of course become a fundamental feature of the definitive design that McDonnell eventually manufactured. The aircraft was to be powered by two Wright J-65 7,800lb turbojet engines and although the new design was undoubtedly derived from the earlier Demon fighter (hence its similar designation), it had a mixed configuration of swept wings and straight tailplane surfaces (albeit with a swept leading edge), combined with a fuselage that was designed to conform to area rule principles in order to decrease drag and improve performance, resulting in the thenfashionable “Coke Bottle” shape. McDonnell accepted that this new derivative of the Demon would not be as fast or agile as the F-101 Voodoo that was being built for the

USAF, but this new design was expected to be much more than a fighter. A formal development proposal for the aircraft was submitted to the US Navy in August 1954 and this was translated into an order for two prototype aircraft and one static test airframe, issued in October of the same year. The aircraft was provisionally designated as the AH-1, reflecting its primary role as an attack platform, although the Navy’s requirements were still shifting and by the middle of 1955 far more official interest was being expressed in the possibility of creating a new fleet defence fighter that would be capable of maintaining long CAP (Combat Air Patrol) missions of three hours or more, armed with new, sophisticated air-to-air missiles and equipped with a secondary attack capability. It was Commander Francis Timmes (Project Officer for the AH-1) who steered the project and worked closely with the Chief of Naval Operations to define a clear role for the aircraft, and when Timmes (together with other USN officials) visited the McDonnell plant at St.Louis, they briefly outlined a “Fleet Air Defense Mission” that would call for an

aircraft capable of flying out to a maximum range of 250 miles in advance of the fleet, maintaining a CAP (Combat Air patrol) for up two hours, engage in air-to-air combat and then return to its carrier, all within a three-hour cycle time. They also specified that the aircraft would be an all-missile machine, guns now being regarded as old-fashioned and therefore unnecessary. McDonnell’s designers were certainly frustrated by the Navy’s attitude, as this new concept was far removed from the one that had been adopted to create the AH-1, but the team went back to the proverbial drawing board and carefully re-designed the AH-1 into a twin-seat all-weather interceptor, now known as the F4H-1. The planned J-65 engines were soon abandoned in favour of the more promising General Electric J-79 that had been developed for the USAF’s mighty B-58 bomber. The proposed AN/APQ-50 radar was retained however, and provision for AAM-N-6 Sparrow missiles was built into the aircraft. Promising to achieve Mach 2 performance, the aircraft still retained a very respectable load-carrying capability but in all other respects the F4H-1 was

F-4 PHANTOM |

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 5

5 †††

05/01/2015 20:47

McDonnell’s first Phantom was the FH-1, the US Navy’s first operational jet, and the first American jet aircraft to launch and land on an aircraft carrier. This particular example is from VMF-122. The FH-1 led to the F2H Banshee, and F3H Demon (Photo: Aeroplane)

Forerunner to the Demon, and developed directly from McDonnell’s FH-1 Phantom, the F2H Banshee was a larger and more powerful carrier-borne fighter. The second prototype (99259) is illustrated here on an early test flight. (Photo: Aeroplane)

6

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 6

05/01/2015 19:37

F-4 Phantom

McDonnell’s original wooden mock-up of the F3H-G. McDonnell submitted both the single-engine F3H-E and the twin-engine F3H-G proposals to the US Navy, with Grumman and North American submitting proposals as well. The F3H-G was duly selected, and a ‘letter of intent’ for two prototypes of the type, now to be designated AH-1, was issued on 18th October 1954. During May 1954 McDonnell released pictures of its F3H-G fighter mock-up. Although the aircraft retained the basic overall configuration of the Demon, it had already been developed quite considerably, and now looked much closer to an enlarged A-4 Skyhawk. By December 1955 the aircraft had become a twin-seat design, and already exhibited many features of the production-standard aircraft that would follow. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection)

F-4 PHANTOM |

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 7

7 †††

05/01/2015 19:37

During 1955 Vought started design of the XF8U-3 Crusader III, a high performance all-weather interceptor/fighter. Although it carried the same F-8 designation as its predecessor, it was an entirely new aircraft that was larger and had a more powerful engine. Vought didn’t designate it as the XF9U-1 (which would have been a logical choice) and it emerged as the XF8U-3 Crusader III. The F8U-2 (the F-8C) had been considered such a major upgrade on the original design that it was initially referred-to as the Crusader II. Although the XF8U-3 shared a broad similarity with the basic F-8 Crusader design, it was in effect a very different aircraft. The general configuration of the airframe remained unchanged but the vertical tail was changed both in shape and size, and two extendable ventral fins were attached to the lower fuselage. The Crusader’s unique ‘hinged wing’ design was retained. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) now very much a fighter, and the US Navy agreed (in July 1955) to initially purchase two prototypes of the re-designed aircraft (the proposed static airframe order was now dropped). However, an order was also placed with Vought for two prototype specimens of their proposed F8U-3 Crusader, designed to directly compete with McDonnell’s aircraft. Vought’s new design eventually emerged as something that was considerably different to the original Crusader fighter, with a new fuselage design and huge ventral fins that retracted to horizontal position for low speed flight and landing. It was in effect a completely different aircraft and certainly a bizarre machine to behold, although McDonnell’s prototype also changed quite drastically into a design that was almost as unorthodox as Vought’s F8U-3. The up-turned wing tips and down-turned tailplanes (or ‘stabilators’) that gave the aircraft its striking appearance were the result of careful

research and experimentation, a great deal of which was performed in wind tunnels. When it was first designed, the AH-1 had a fairly low-set horizontal tailplane but when investigations into potential yaw stability were conducted, it became clear that a larger vertical fin area was necessary. The fin structure was already unusually broad so that the overall height of the fin could be kept short, in order to comfortably fit within the Navy’s carrier hangars. Enlarging the fin still further seemed almost impossible, and so the concept of introducing dihedral or anhedral (a downward angle) into the tailplane was investigated as a means of achieving the same result. After performing tests with more

than 20 different arrangements, the best solution was found to be a tailplane position at the base of the fin, with 23.25 degrees of anhedral that provided good stability whilst still avoiding the main flow of air from the wings and engines, thereby ensuring that the tailplane surfaces would have good control authority under most conditions. The aircraft’s swept-delta wing was designed as a huge one-piece structure (albeit with a manufacturing splice along the centre line) that would be immensely strong and capable of withstanding severe manoeuvring stresses, whilst also being able to carry very heavy weapons loads. The outer wing tips were deigned to fold upwards in order to keep the

8

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 8

05/01/2015 19:38

F-4 PHANTOM

A classic McDonnell publicity photograph of the F4H-1 prototype inside the company’s St. Louis factory. Suitably placed for the cameraman, the aircraft’s J79 engine illustrates its considerable length, mostly created by the afterburner cans attached to its rear portions. Numerous F-101 Voodoos can bee seen nearing completion in the background. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

▲ The first F4H-1 pictured outside the McDonnell plant at St. Louis, shortly after completion. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) ► McDonnell’s test pilot Bob Little, pictured in the cockpit of the F4H-1 prototype at St. Louis. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) F-4 PHANTOM |

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 9

9 †††

05/01/2015 19:38

aircraft’s overall dimensions within an acceptable limit for carrier deck operations, but the rest of the structure was intended to be as simple and rugged as possible. As the design process progressed, a “dog tooth” notch was incorporated into the wing leading edge to cause upper-surface vortices at high angles-of-attack, thereby preserving lateral control and avoiding any risk of pitch-up. It also became clear that incorporating a degree of dihedral (an upwards angle) into the wings would give the aircraft better stability, but nobody on the design team wanted to destroy the established layout of the immensely strong main wing structure as this would have required a great deal of re-design and engineering work if it was to remain as tough and durable as it already was. The compromise solution adopted was to apply

twelve degrees of dihedral to just the outer wing tips, giving the whole wing an “average” dihedral of five degrees, and this also ensured that the inner wing’s airflow would not interfere with the effectiveness of the tailplanes. The decision to adopt a two-man crew for the F4H-1 was a controversial issue that was never properly settled. McDonnell based the final choice on the preferences expressed by the US Navy, although a significant number of the Navy’s pilots were also convinced that a single-seat aircraft would be a better solution. The final decision was actually taken over a Friday afternoon meal during which the US Navy’s George Duncan and Francis Timmes met with McDonnell’s Barkey and decided that a twin-seat configuration would be their preferred choice, necessitating a reduction in fuel capacity by some 150

gallons in order to accommodate the second cockpit, although an external centerline fuel tank would compensate for this. In the late 1950s radar design was still far from advanced and interpreting the radar’s often confusing signals was a task that required a great deal of attention and skill. Conventional wisdom at the time suggested that sophisticated radar-equipped aircraft should carry two crew members so that the pilot could concentrate on the task of flying and fighting while the second crew member devoted most of his time to the radar’s operation. Of course, the typical US Navy fighter pilot (who was usually blessed with perfect weather conditions and plenty of daylight) professed to be more than capable of handling his aircraft alone, and that a second crew member simply added unnecessary weight and drag to the aircraft’s

10

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 10

05/01/2015 19:38

F-4 Phantom design. McDonnell’s designers were rather more realistic, and accepted that there was a growing need for a fighter that could perform in all weather conditions both by day or night, and it seemed inevitable that this dictated a two-man crew, particularly when it seemed inevitable that more on-board systems would be developed that would require even more attention. Consequently, there was a perception within the US Navy that the new aircraft would be an unremarkable multi-role “Jack of All Trades.” It was a belief that persisted for some time, until pilots finally got their hands on the new machine and finally realised that their prejudice couldn’t have been more misplaced. The choice of twin engines was also as controversial as the adoption of the two-man crew, but jet engine technology had progressed incredibly swiftly to a stage

where the addition of a second engine really did promise twice the amount of thrust for much less than twice the weight, and so the assumed preference for a single engine was no longer quite so obvious. Moreover, the adoption of twin engines would give the aircraft better reliability and safety for over-water operation, and in a combat situation it would afford better survivability, on the basis that a twin-engine aircraft is likely to be able to sustain far more damage and still keep flying. The were other advantages too, not least the promise of better sustained turning rate, even if this was at the expense of fuel consumption, and in almost every possible scenario imaginable, it seemed clear that the adoption of two engines was far preferable to a single engine design, even though many US Navy officials accepted that this concept simply served to

emphasise the growing notion that the F4H-1 would be a big, cumbersome and heavy machine that would fail to deliver any kind of significant performance. Of course, history proves that this gloomy assumption couldn’t have been more wrong. The first F4H-1 (there never was a YF4H-1 or XF4H-1 as might have been expected) was completed at McDonnell’s St. Louis factory, in anticipation of a maiden flight in February 1958. The date was brought forward to December 1957 when McDonnell devised a new overtime working arrangement for the factory, but the US Navy then intervened and specified that for safety reasons, the first flight should take place at Edwards AFB. This meant that the aircraft would have to be dismantled, transported to California and re-assembled, resulting in a first flight date sometime in March 1958, but after

F4H-1 prototype pictured at the beginning of an early test flight. The rear cockpit is empty, and remained mostly unoccupied (and mostly devoid of instrumentation) for most of the aircraft’s early test programme. Unusually, the main landing gear doors have been removed. The wing leading edge slats can be seen in their extended position. This view also illustrates the proportions of the early intake design, and the lower profile of the cockpit canopies. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) F-4 PHANTOM | 11 †††

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 11

05/01/2015 19:38

In flight look at the F4H-1 prototype, illustrating the early design of the air intakes, and their raked/curved proportions. The aircraft’s paint scheme (when pictured in monochrome) gives the impression of curved wing tips, whereas the Phantom’s typical square tips can in fact just be seen, in darker (red) colours. Also of note are the early-type perforated spoilers on the wing surfaces, and the empty rear cockpit. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

12

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 12

05/01/2015 19:39

F-4 Phantom

▲ F4H-1 production at St. Louis. Clearly visible on the aircraft pictured in the foreground is the Ram Air Turbine bay; this small generator was designed to provide electrical services in the event of an in-flight emergency. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) preparations were made to make this unnecessary move, the Navy finally agreed that the aircraft could fly from the more-than adequate airfield at St. Louis. Of course by this stage the programme was inevitably delayed, and it wasn’t until 27 May 1958 that 142259, the first F4H-1 was finally ready to take to the air. Roll-out had been performed on 8 May and after two J79-GE-3 engines had initially been installed, more advanced YJ79-GE-3 engines were fitted prior to the first flight, each developing 15,600lb thrust. Taxi tests had started on 16 May with further runs being performed on 23 and 25 May and two days later the aircraft was declared ready to fly. McDonnell’s Chief Test Pilot Robert C. Little climbed into the aircraft out in the Missouri sunshine without the company of any second pilot or observer, as the prototype was not equipped with radar and was only scheduled to make a simple shake-down flight (indeed, the aircraft was essentially a single-seat machine in its early configuration, the second cockpit being redundant for its test role). Shortly after

Early publicity image of the F4H-1, pictured with an ambitious display of weapons options. (Tim McLelland collection) getting airborne the aircraft began to exhibit hydraulic problems and Bob Little re-cycled the undercarriage sequence again but after bringing-in an accompanying F-101 chase plane for a closer look, the nose wheel bay door was seen to be fixed in its open position.

The only way to keep the aircraft symmetrically trimmed would be to extend the landing gear again. His first flight report stated:“As the climb-out was continued, the pilot noted a hydraulic warning light on power

F-4 PHANTOM | 13 †††

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 13

05/01/2015 19:39

control system No.2 and the pressure dropped to zero. The chase pilot reported evidence of hydraulic fluid under the right wing at the same time. The flight was continued on power control system No.1 pressure. The leading and trailing edge flaps were retracted normally with no perceptible trim change. The climb was discontinued at an altitude of 10,000 feet and speed was increased to 370 knots IAS. At this time the chase pilot reported that the nose gear door was not fully closed. However, no gear cycle was attempted at this time. The airplane

handling qualities were briefly evaluated to 370 knots IAS with satisfactory results on the lateral and longitudinal control system. Dihedral effect was mild and lateraldirectional damping as a result of rudder input was good. Speed brakes were extended at 350 knots IAS with no noticeable trim change. Airspeed was reduced to approximately 240 knots IAS, where the landing gear was extended satisfactorily with no trim change. Airspeed was reduced further to 200 knots IAS and the leading and trailing edge flaps were extended; trim

change was not perceptible to the pilot. The flight was then discontinued since continued operation on one power control hydraulic system was considered unadvisable”. After modifications to the aircraft’s intakes had been made (the inlet ramps were repositioned at an angle of four degrees during this process) the prototype’s second flight was performed on 29 May, and the nose gear door stubbornly refused to retract again, and the flight was in effect little more than a repetition of the first one. It wasn’t until the third flight (on 31 May) that things

14

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 14

05/01/2015 19:40

F-4 Phantom

The Phantom’s initial carrier trials were carried out by Bu. No 143391, which was first launched and recovered aboard the USS  Independence (CVA-62) on February 15th 1960. Board of Inspection and Survey trials began at NATC Patuxent River in July of 1960. This series of images shows the aircraft preparing for a catapult launch, and making an arrestor landing at Patuxent River. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection)

began to improve and on the fourth flight (completed on 2 June) the aircraft comfortably exceeded Mach 1.68. The project now looked much more promising, but McDonnell were only too aware that Chance Vought were also busy developing their Crusader derivative and that the US Navy would ultimately compare the two designs in a “fly-off” competition. During 1958 the emerging Vought design was carefully compared with McDonnell’s, and the Navy examined all aspects of the two aircraft’s comparative capabilities. It soon became

clear that the Crusader promised to be superior in most areas, particularly low and high altitude top speed, supersonic climb, acceleration, as well as its carrier approach and launch speed, range and manoeuvrability. Moreover, it was also cheaper by some 27 percent, at least for an initial proposed quantity of 83 aircraft. When the two aircraft were taken to Edwards AFB for a “fly-off” competition, they were not in fact pitted directly against each other. The test flying was largely designed to validate the two aircraft’s true performance as

compared to the figures that had been predicted and the outcome of the “fly-off” was merely a confirmation of what the designers and potential customer already knew. The Crusader was a superior flying machine in almost every respect and Vought’s Chief Test Pilot confidently claimed that the Crusader could easily out-perform the F4H-1 in most conditions. When the F4H-1 was declared as the winning design on 17 December (and an initial batch of 24 aircraft was ordered), many people were surprised at the Navy’s choice. The two

F-4 PHANTOM | 15 †††

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 15

05/01/2015 19:40

F4H-1 143391 is pictured just before and just after landing on board the USS Independence during the Phantom’s initial carrier qualification trials. The wing control surfaces can be seen in the landing configuration with leading edge slats down, flap down and spoiler partially raised. Two dummy Sparrow missiles are carried, chiefly in order to assist with maintenance of the aircraft’s centre of gravity. Also clearly visible is the relatively thin-walled wheels and tyres fitted to the early Phantom’s main undercarriage. The rear cockpit remains unoccupied – a fairly standard arrangement for many of the Phantom’s early test flights, when the rear cockpit’s systems were not necessary. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

16

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 16

05/01/2015 19:40

F-4 Phantom

competing designs had demonstrated that despite the protestations of some overconfident “can-do” pilots, the two-man crew concept was far more efficient. An aircraft armed with multiple air-to-air missiles and a relatively sophisticated radar system would require constant attention, and pilots flying the existing single-seat Crusaders had demonstrated that they were sometimes unable to handle the radar and weapons system adequately whilst flying and fighting at the same time, particularly when the temperamental Sparrow missile required its

target to be continually illuminated by radar until impact. A Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) would enable the pilot to concentrate on flying, and transform the aircraft into a more effective fighting machine. Likewise, the development of both the missiles and radar systems indicated the Navy’s faith in missile technology, and a growing (but mistaken) belief that guns were to become a thing of the past. The traditional notion of a fast and agile dog fighter was slowly being replaced by the concept of a “weapons system” and the F4H-1 suited this idea far more

comfortably than Vought’s design which, even in its much-modified form, was still a single-seat and single-engine dogfighter. Of course the F4H-1 was a twin-engine design and it seemed obvious to the Navy that the advantages of the two-engine concept were equally as important as the two-crew configuration. It is also undoubtedly true that the F4H-1’s initial beginnings as an attack aircraft had a very powerful effect upon the Navy’s thinking. Although the next fleet fighter would have to be at least as capable as its predecessor in terms of performance, it

F-4 PHANTOM | 17 †††

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 17

05/01/2015 19:41

► This pre-production F4H-1 is equipped with the later ‘definitive’ version of the Phantom’s air intake that was slowly developed during the initial flight trials period. The fixed splitter plates were replaced by a combination of a ten-degree variable ramp mounted aft of a fixed five-degree ramp. The inner splitter plate was made much larger and now stood 3 inches away from the wall of the fuselage. The inner splitter plate had 12,500 tiny bleed air holes on its surface through which boundary layer air was sucked by aft-facing ejectors. The proportions of the F4H-1 nose profile soon changed when radar equipment was installed, and the canopy profile was raised, enabling both crew (particularly the pilot) to achieve a better view from the cockpit. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) would also have to be able to deliver far more in terms of flexibility and versatility. With all these factors in mind, McDonnell’s design was the clear winner. On 3 July 1959, as part of the company’s 20th anniversary celebrations, the F4H-1 was officially named “Phantom II” in recognition of the company’s earlier FH-1 Phantom aircraft that had been successfully manufactured for the US Navy some years previously. Project Manager Don Malvern had wanted to call the new aircraft “Satan” in keeping with the type of nomenclature that had been applied to the company’s family of jet aircraft, but when he offered this suggestion to James McDonnell (often referred to as “Mr. Mac”) the response was distinctly lukewarm, and, James McDonnell suggested “Mithras”, the Persian god of light as a better alternative. Don Malvern was unconvinced, and he diligently

drew-up a list of potential names including those already suggested, combined with new ones such as “Warlock” and others. He showed the list to employees and potential customers whenever he had an opportunity and almost everyone agreed that “Satan” was the preferred name. He finally gave the responses to James McDonnell, who put them aside until the day before the

anniversary celebrations, when Malvern (eager to arrange for suitable signs and decorations to be made for the next day) asked McDonnell for a final decision on the aircraft’s name. James McDonnell handed hip a slip of paper, on which he had written “Phantom II” and with no time to consider the matter any further (and with no desire to question Mr. Mac’s decision for a second

18

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 18

05/01/2015 19:42

F-4 Phantom F4H-1 145310 was delivered to the US Navy in August 1959 and was the 11th pre-production Phantom to be built. It was used for various trials projects including weapons drops, carrier operations and some ‘Sageburner’ trial flights. One of its more significant activities occurred on April 22nd 1961, when it carried 22 500lb Mk.83 live bombs to Fort Bragg, and delivered them to a target observed by officials including President John F. Kennedy. This demonstration was influential in convincing the USAF that a derivative of the Phantom should be ordered. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

time) Malvern set forth on making arrangements to officially name the F4H-1 the next day. By the end of October 1959 no less than eleven F4H-1 Phantom aircraft (from an eventual batch of 47 such aircraft, including the two prototypes) were actively flying on test duties, and the flight development programme had mostly transferred from McDonnell’s plant at St. Louis to Edwards AFB in California. The first example of the Block 2 version joined the test programme in July, equipped with Westinghouse AN/APQ-72 radar, complete with a 24-inch radar dish and an AN/AAA-4 cryogenic seeker inside a smaller fairing underneath the radome. This seeker was designed to provide the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) with passive tracking of infra-red emissions from whatever target was being tracked, but the system proved to be both troublesome and often ineffective, and it was not adopted for fleet-wide use, even though the fairing underneath the aircraft’s radome was retained (the cost and delays associated with its removal from the production line seemed pointless) and eventually it was used for other avionics fits, years later. The Block 3 aircraft included further modifications, the radar dish being enlarged to 32-inch in response to increased radar range requirements. This change prompted a major re-design of the aircraft’s nose contours, the nose being enlarged and

The second F4H-1 (142260) was assigned to barrier arrestor trials during 1961, although this image appears to be a publicity photograph, showing the position of a representative crash barrier, as the aircraft would normally engage it. By this stage the aircraft has acquired a ‘0002’ legend on the forward nose section. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection drooped ahead of the engine air intakes to improve the pilot’s view over the larger radome, while the cockpit area was reshaped and raised to afford both the pilot and RIO better all-round visibility. The air intakes were also re-designed, in order to provide adequate flow for more powerful J79-GE-8 engines that offered an additional 1,300lb thrust over the 9,600lb that was

delivered by the J79-GE-2A that had been originally earmarked for the aircraft. With the application of reheat (afterburning), the improved engine could produce a very impressive maximum thrust of 17,000lb. The new air intakes were rather more complex than they appeared, comprising of two sections; one being a fixed splitter plate, positioned two inches from the fuselage in

F-4 PHANTOM | 19 †††

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 19

05/01/2015 19:42

The US Navy’s successful speed and altitude attempts swiftly brought the Phantom to the attention of the public, media and military both in the continental USA and across the world. As part of Operation Top Flight, on 6 December 1959, the second XF4H-1 performed a zoom climb to a world record 98,557 ft (30,040 m). The previous record of 94,658 ft (28,852 m) was set by a Soviet Sukhoi T-43-1 prototype. Commander Lawrence E. Flint, Jr., USN accelerated his aircraft to Mach 2.5 at 47,000 ft (14,330 m) and climbed to 90,000 ft (27,430 m) at a 45° angle. He then shut down the engines and glided to the peak altitude. As the aircraft fell through 70,000 ft (21,300 m), Flint restarted the engines and resumed normal flight. On 5 September 1960, an F4H-1 averaged 1,216.78 mph (1,958.16 km/h) over a 500 km (311 mi) closed-circuit course. On 25 September 1960, an F4H-1 averaged 1,390.21 mph (2,237.26 km/h) over a 100 km (62.1 mi) closed-circuit course. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection)

20

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 20

05/01/2015 19:42

F-4 Phantom

On 28 August 1961 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Naval Aviation, Lieutenants Huntington Hardisty and Earl De Esch, United States Navy, flew a McDonnell F4H-1F Phantom II to a World Speed Record of 902.714 mph over a 31.864 mile course at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. They flew the record attempt at altitudes of below 125 feet. The record-setting airplane is now at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the National Air and Space Museum. An earlier speed record attempt on 18 May 1961 ended tragically when Commander J.L. Felsmanwas killed and his F4H-1F Phantom No.145316 was destroyed when a pitch damper failed resulting in Pilot Induced Oscillation. This became so severe that the Phantom’s airframe was subjected to 12g, causing it to break apart in flight. Both engines were torn from the airframe and Commander Felsman was the first pilot to be killed in a Phantom. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection) order to avoid the boundary layer air flow. The second section was a perforated variable ramp that automatically moved to suit the requirements of the engine, and was followed by a bypass bell-mouth ring that adjusted airflow and vented cooling air around the engines. This vented air rejoined the exhaust gases from the engines between the primary and secondary exhaust nozzles, adding some extra thrust and cushioning the hot exhaust flow. The resulting convergentdivergent nozzle became a familiar part of all future J79-powered Phantoms and when the in-flow of air vented from the intakes combined with the main exhaust gases, the Phantom inevitably produced its infamous ethereal wailing howl that became so familiar to the many thousands of people who spent any time in the vicinity of the aircraft as they wheeled around the sky. To the observer, the J-79 engine often gave the impression of

smoky, noisy inefficiency, but the Phantom’s engines and intake system were in fact remarkably advanced, and provided the aircraft with an outstanding engine response that made the Phantom perfectly suited to carrier operations. The first 47 aircraft were subsequently re-designated as F4H-1F

derivatives, and when the American military aircraft designation system was revised in 1962, these finally became the F-4A Phantom variant. Aircraft completed after the 47th example duly became re-designated as the F-4B, and this was effectively the first full production-standard variant of the aircraft. v

F-4 PHANTOM | 21

Chapter One 4-21 Phantom.indd 21

05/01/2015 19:42

Nautical Nascence The Phantom enters service with the US Navy and Marine Corps

An F-4B streaks over the deck of the USS Kennedy with hook, slats and flaps down, ready to take the arrester cable which can be seen just a few feet ahead of the aircraft. (Photo: Aeroplane) 22

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 22

05/01/2015 19:45

F-4 Phantom

T

he US Navy conducted a Primary Evaluation on the Phantom in September 1958, and as one of the evaluation team later commented, they “put it through every conceivable stress. We were really wringing the new bird out and it impressed us as one sturdy flying machine.” It was also vitally important that the Phantom should be suitable for carrier operations and the aircraft was assigned to carrier trials in February 1960. F4H-1 143391 (the sixth aircraft) was selected for the trials and it was flown directly to the USS Independence where18 catapult launches and recoveries were made from the carrier during the aircraft’s five-day stay. Everyone was impressed by the aircraft’s handling characteristics and its extreme ruggedness, and just two months later the same aircraft was deployed to the USS Intrepid, a smaller carrier, from which another 20 successful launches and arrested landings were made. In addition to the full-stop landings, a series of wave-off approaches was also included in this second carrier trial (held from 25-27 April) and the aircraft made some particularly demanding approaches on one engine, without the use of afterburner. Minor modifications to the aircraft’s tail hook were made in response to some of the lesssatisfactory approaches in which the hook sometimes had skipped over the arrestor cables, but in all other respects the trials proved to be very satisfactory. Some 47 F4H-1

Although aerial refuelling was a necessary part of the Phantom’s capabilities from the outset, the prospect of using the Phantom as a refuelling tanker was also investigated, and a specially-designed refuelling system was tested thoroughly, as illustrated in this image. The refuelling equipment was contained within an external pod and would have enabled US Navy Phantom units to refuel their own aircraft. However the cost of developing and operating the system was judged to be unnecessary as Skywarrior aircraft were already available to act as dedicated takers. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) aircraft (which were eventually re-designated as the F-4A) were initially ordered, followed by two successive orders, each for 72 aircraft (the F-4B). Significantly, the US Marine Corps wanted the Phantom as much as the Navy did and the introduction of the Phantom into operational service was conducted almost simultaneously for both the US Navy and

Marines. The creation of the first Replacement Air Groups began late in 1959. The RAGs would be the first Phantom squadrons, tasked with the training of new crews, and bringing the aircraft up to a combat-ready status. VF-101, the “Grim Reapers” was the first unit to be assigned to this task, based at NAS

First service operators of the F4H-1 were VF-101 Detachment A, based at NAS Oceana in Virginia. They began operations in June 1960, and a second detachment was established at NAS Key West in Florida in 1962, when the Phantoms transferred there from Oceana. These early aircraft were devoid of unit markings, other than the tail code and the ‘Det A’ markings on the fuselage and external fuel tank. As was common with most reserve and training aircraft during that period, liberal applications of fluorescent orange paint were applied to the aircraft. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

F-4 PHANTOM | 23 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 23

05/01/2015 20:49

F4H-1 Phantoms from VF-102 pictured during May 1962 (Photo: US Navy)

A classic picture showing one of VF-142’s early F-4B Phantoms, just seconds before it lands aboard the USS Ranger during a carrier deployment in 1967. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) Oceana in Virginia, but with a detachment at NAS Key West in Florida. With this unit established as the east coast RAG, an equivalent unit was formed at NAS Miramar in California, where VF-121 the “Pacemakers” received its first Phantom (148256) on 30 December 1960. VF-101 was rather slower to receive the Phantom and the unit retained its Skyrays and Demons for some time after the first F4H-1F (F-4A) aircraft had arrived in 1961. The first production F-4B (initially still designated as an F4H-1) made its maiden flight on 25 March 1961. The first operational US Navy Phantom squadrons then began to form, starting with VF-74 the “Be-devilers” at

Phantoms were assigned to countless test programmes, this particular aircraft (F-4J 153077) is pictured carrying a Pedro Recruit sounding rocket, used for high speed re-entry research. Such was the size of the rocket, it was attached slightly off-centre in order to clear the nose landing gear. (Photo: US Navy)

Oceana on 8 July. Carrier qualification was completed (on the USS Saratoga) by October and in August 1962 this unit made the first full F-4B deployment on board a carrier, spending some seven months on the USS Forrestal. VF-114 “Aardvarks” was the next unit, based at Miramar, making its first full carrier deployment (on the Kitty Hawk) in September 1962. Early experience with the Phantom at sea was almost entirely positive, and the aircraft was hailed as a great success. With a carrier approach speed of 142 knots the Phantom was rather faster than most other types that the Navy had become accustomed to, although it was slightly slower than the 147

knots required by the Crusader. But despite the high landing speed, the aircraft was stable and predictable, partly because of the aircraft’s Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS), but also because of the overall design configuration that had produced an aircraft that was perfectly suited for carrier operations. Of course, the aircraft wouldn’t have behaved so well without the AFCS, or the all-important Boundary Layer Control (BLC) system, that bled air from the engine’s 17th compressor stage and delivered it to slots along the leading edge of the wing flaps and slats, smoothing the wing’s surface airflow that would otherwise have caused the wing to

24

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 24

05/01/2015 19:45

F-4 Phantom

F-4N from VF-301 is pictured on final approach to Yuma MCAS in Arizona, during the March 1980 second annual Reserve Fighter Derby. (Photo: US Navy)

Typical carrier scene as a VF-74 F-4J Phantom is prepared for launch, the catapult launch strops and hold-down cable being attached while the aircraft sits at rest, exhaust smoke drifting up the erected jet blast deflectors. (Photo: US Navy) F-4 PHANTOM | 25 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 25

05/01/2015 19:45

stall. In effect, the BLC enabled the Phantom to land at an artificially lower landing speed than would otherwise have been possible. The aircraft’s sturdy landing gear allowed for surprisingly heavy landings and the Phantom could be routinely smashed onto the carrier deck with a heavy sink rate, without any risk of damage. This avoided any risk of “floating” at the critical touch-down point, and the pendant (arrestor wire) was usually engaged without difficulty, before being neatly dropped by the carefully-designed tail hook, once the aircraft came to a halt. For catapult launches, the J-79 engines were judged to be both powerful and reliable, and unlike engines that had hitherto been common to other carrier types, the J-79 delivered very swift thrust response thanks to its twin-spool design that avoided the usual inertia problems associated with early jet engines. This gave the J-79 the ability to retain inertia at all but the lowest idle settings, and gave the carrier pilot an almost instant thrust response that was ideal for carrier wave-offs, either with or without afterburner. On the negative side, the Phantom soon demonstrated a tendency to over-rotate after launch, particularly if the aircraft was carrying what had become the almost standard fit of external fuel tanks under each wing. The tendency wasn’t due to any deficit in the aircraft’s design but was simply a symptom of the pilot’s grip on the aircraft’s control column at the critical moment of launch. Even the slightest back pressure would encourage the aircraft to over-rotate, resulting in a

catastrophic stall as the aircraft lurched over the carrier’s bow. Although an alarming sight for observers, a “perfect” launch would actually see the Phantom sink slightly below the deck level as it launched, before climbing away as speed built up, and although stalls were not particularly common, there were many scary moments and the crews were soon familiar with what became a standard Phantom motto; “There are two kinds of Phantoms – those that have over-rotated on a cat shot and those that are going to do so.” Away from the risks of carrier landings and launches, the Phantom was even more reliable and the aircraft performed well in almost all circumstances, much to the delight of the new Phantom crews that were assigned to the aircraft. However, the Phantom wasn’t completely free of all vices, and crews soon learned that even with good reserves of power and excellent manoeuvrability, the aircraft didn’t perform quite so well when it was laden with external stores. Although the Phantom was quickly recognised as an excellent fighter with potential for equally impressive abilities as an attack aircraft, it couldn’t easily perform both tasks simultaneously, and pilots soon learned that if the aircraft was flown with external stores, it had to be handled with respect. Likewise, the Phantom soon demonstrated its dislike for careless handling at low speed – a situation that could easily encourage a stall and an ensuing spin from which there might not be sufficient altitude to recover. Spin recoveries were not recommended below

One of the first two Navy squadrons to go to sea with the Phantoms was VF-102, which took its F4H-1s aboard the USS Enterprise in mid-1962. This nostalgic image shows three aircraft, all firmly attached to the deck with tie-down hooks. (Photo: US Navy) 26

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 26

05/01/2015 20:49

F-4 PHANTOM

F-4 PHANTOM | 27 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 27

05/01/2015 19:46

A trio of F-4Js wearing the eye-catching markings of VMFA-235 pictured on a rainy day in August 1974. (Photo: Paul Minert collection)

10,000 feet and the recommended action was to eject immediately if a spin developed. Pilots soon learned that the Phantom’s responsive and mostly docile handling qualities could be restored by dumping external loads but some hard lessons had to be learned quickly by pilots who were accustomed to smaller, lighter and far less capable aircraft. But in the hands of a competent pilot the Phantom was a truly impressive machine, capable of carrying a very large and varied weapons load, and demonstrated that it was able to perform well at both high and low altitude. The Navy and Marine Corps soon learned just how versatile the aircraft was, and there was undoubtedly a tendency to regard the aircraft as an all-capable, multi-role machine, even though it had of course been manufactured purely as a fleet defence fighter, despite McDonnell’s belief that the aircraft could (and would) do much more than dogfight. It could of course perform many other roles, but versatility was only deliverable with some very clear limitations. Rather more surprising to the Navy during the Phantom’s introduction into service, was the appearance of control surface damage on some aircraft that been flown at very high speeds. Aircraft returning from supersonic flights often had chunks of honeycomb structure missing from flaps and ailerons, where de-bonding of the internal structure had occurred. It disturbed the Navy but it wasn’t a significant concern for McDonnell, not least because there was a growing knowledge of bonding agents as a result of the huge space programme, and McDonnell soon found a suitable cure for the problem,

VF-11, the famous ‘Red Rippers’, equipped with the F-4B Phantom during 1965 when the unit was based at NAS Oceana, Virginia. The unit saw action during the Vietnam War whilst assigned to the USS Forrestal (CAW 17) in 1967. The unit re-equipped with the F-14 Tomcat in 1980. (Photo: US Navy)

28

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 28

05/01/2015 19:47

F-4 Phantom VF-111 began its existence operating as VF-11 at NAS North Island California on October 10th 1942, and by October 23rd the unit was on its way to Hawaii with its Grumman F4F Wildcats. To epitomize their spirit and their declared tactical superiority over the Japanese, the squadron decided it would be called the ‘Sundowners’ and its insignia was created, depicting two Wildcats shooting down a Rising Sun. In 1971 VF-111 joined CVW-15 and transitioned to the F-4B Phantom II. The squadron subsequently transitioned to the F-4N version of the Phantom, but only as a short-term measure pending the delivery of F-4Js. During 1975 both VF-111 and VF-51 duly received six F-4Js but due to operational considerations connected to their next deployment, the two units reverted back to the ‘N’ model. In late 1976 through early 1977, VF-111 made an Atlantic and Mediterranean deployment (a rare event for a Pacific Fleet squadron) with CVW-15 aboard USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) for that carrier’s final cruise. The squadron returned to NAS Miramar in April 1977 and began transitioning to the F-14 Tomcat. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection) The VMFA(AW)-235 “Death Angels” flew several combat tours in Vietnam with the F-8E Crusader, becoming the last Marines unit to fly the Crusader, until they redesigned as VMFA-235 and transitioned to the F-4J late in 1968. The unit was deployed around the Western Pacific region until November 1981, when it transitioned to the F-4S. This image shows an F-4J taking on fuel from an A-4 Skyhawk equipped with a ‘buddy-buddy refueling pod. (Photo: US Navy)

even though it did require a time-consuming and costly repair effort. Some aircraft also showed signs of severe corrosion particularly in the rear fuselage structure, as a result of continual exposure to salt water. Many aircraft had to be repaired and some had complete sections replaced, until a better sealing process was established that protected the airframe from the harsh environment. A number of F4H-1 aircraft remained assigned to test duties while the F-4B settled into service, the NATC (Naval Air test Center) at Patuxent River taking on the responsibility for testing the Phantom to its limits, in order to establish just how much punishment the aircraft could withstand. It was not uncommon to sometimes see the F4H-1 being flown here in the most brutal fashion, particularly on dummy deck landing trials

where the aircraft was occasionally flown into a cable engagement even before the landing gear had made proper contact, resulting in a seemingly catastrophic “crash” onto the deck. Other approaches were made in a nose-down attitude so that the nose wheel touched down ahead of the main gear, creating another type of particularly hair-raising arrival, but throughout these tortuous trials, the Phantom performed remarkably well, demonstrating its extremely rugged construction and its ability to withstand even the most clumsy handling. Other trials at Pax River included the testing of a potential buddy refueling system that would have enabled Phantoms to transfer fuel in flight to and from each aircraft. F-4B 151463 was equipped with a specially designed hose and drogue basket assembly that emerged from an extendible boom under the aircraft’s

F-4N Phantoms from VMFA-323 on board the USS Coral Sea (CV43) during October 1979. Clearly visible here is the F-4N’s elongated AN/ALQ-126 cable duct on the intake trunking. (Photo: US Navy) fuselage. The system worked well, but it was never introduced into service as there was a ready supply of KA-3 Skywarrior and KA-6D Intruder tankers equipped for the tanker role, and the cost of producing new tanker equipment for the Phantom was therefore an unnecessary expense. Another F-4A (148254) was adorned with the legend “Look Ma, No Hands” in recognition of its role as a development aircraft for an Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) being developed for the next naval Phantom variant, the F-4J. Designed as a direct follow-on to the F-4B, the “J” model

F-4 PHANTOM | 29 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 29

05/01/2015 19:47

During 1946 the US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Chester Nimitz created a flight exhibition team designed to raise the public’s interest in naval aviation and boost Navy morale. The unit was first called the Navy Flight Exhibition Team and was re-designated as the United States Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron in December 1974. The original team was christened the Blue Angels in 1946, when one of the team’s pilots saw the name of New York City’s Blue Angel Nightclub in The New Yorker magazine. The team introduced themselves as the Blue Angels to the public for the first time on 21st July 1946, in Omaha, Nebraska.  The Blues transitioned to the two-seat McDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom II in 1969. Despite being a two-seat aircraft, the back seat was almost always kept empty for public flight demonstrations. The Phantom was the only plane to be flown by both the Blue Angels and the United States Air Force Thunderbirds team. The Phantom was an immensely popular demonstration machine but the cost of operating the aircraft proved to be unsustainable, especially when a world fuel crisis developed. Consequently in December 1974 the Navy Flight Demonstration Team downsized to the subsonic Douglas A-4F Skyhawk II and was reorganized into the Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron. The team now flies the F/A-18 Hornet. (Photos: Paul Minert & Tim McLelland collections) 30

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 30

05/01/2015 19:48

F-4 Phantom

F-4 PHANTOM | 31 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 31

05/01/2015 19:48

F-4B Phantom production underway at McDonnell’s St. Louis plant during 1963. (Photo: Aeroplane)

(actually designated by McDonnell as the Model 98EV) addressed the F-4B’s deficiencies, most notably through the introduction of a new landing gear that was substantially stronger and capable of withstanding even greater sink rates. The F-4A/B main landing gear was more than adequate, but the narrow main wheel tyres were prone to hydroplaning, and although this was something that wasn’t an issue for carrier operations, it was potentially troublesome on land, especially in poor weather conditions. The F-4J introduced fatter, lower-pressure tyres that obviated this problem and also reduced the risk of roll-bounce that (in a hard landing) could sometimes punch the landing gear leg through the wing skin. The F-4J also

introduced the British Martin-Baker Mk.7 ejection seat, regarded as far more capable and reliable than the F-4A’s McDonnelldesigned seat that had equipped all of the Phantoms produced to date, in various forms of modification. With a true “zero-zero” capability, the Martin Baker Mk.7 seat allowed crews to successfully abandon their aircraft even at ground level and without any forward air speed, an ability that was regarded as vitally important for carrier operations. Significant effort was made to give the F-4J better launch and landing performance too, but with a clear need for speed, range and good climb capability, a drag-inducing slatted wing design could not be adopted and so McDonnell looked at other ways of improving

the Phantom’s performance. Most notably, British experience was incorporated into the F-4J by adopting a BLC system for the stabilators. This concept had been successfully developed by Blackburn for the British Buccaneer strike aircraft and McDonnell developed a similar design for the F-4J, turning the stabilator into what was in effect an inverted wing, delivering tremendous downward force at low speed, enabling high angle-of-attack approaches to be made without any risk of stalling, whilst providing a very powerful nose-up pitch for the aircraft when launched. Trials revealed that retracting the wing’s inboard leading edge flap (slat) enabled even more authority to be achieved by the new tailplane, and the F-4J (and most

32

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 32

05/01/2015 19:49

F-4 Phantom

Ens. James W. Laing ejects from the rear cockpit of an F-4 Phantom II of Fighter Squadron (VF) 114 on 24th April 1967 after the aircraft was hit by anti-aircraft artillery fire during a strike on Kep Airfield in North Vietnam. Both Laing and his pilot (Lt. Cdr. C. Southwick) escaped unscathed from the incident. (Photo: US Navy)

VF-102 completed its last cruise with the F4D Skyray during 1960, after which the unit moved to NAS Oceana in Virginia. Transition to the F-4B Phantom then began (during 1961), and the unit continued to operate Phantoms until June 1981. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) subsequent Phantom variants) adopted this configuration as standard. Approach speed was reduced by twelve knots even though the F-4J was equipped with more powerful 17,900 lb J79-GE-10 engines, distinguishable by their longer “turkey feather” exhaust petals. The first F-4J to fly (on 27 May 1966) was in fact the second aircraft 153072, the first having been assigned to ground testing. Deliveries to the US Navy began in October 1966 when VF-101 began its transition onto the new variant, the Marine Corps also taking delivery of the new model some months later. The first USMC Phantom squadron was VMF(AW)-314, the “Black Knights” based at MCAS El Toro in California. The first F4H-1 aircraft were delivered to this unit during May 1962 and just

one month later the first deliveries were made to the second USMC Phantom unit, VMF(AW)-531 “Gray Ghosts” initially at NAS Oceana before moving south to MCAS Cherry Point. Oceana was the first (temporary) home of the unit’s Phantoms as the USN and USMC combined maintenance and flight training during this early stage in the Phantom’s operational life. Significantly, by 1963 the USMC opted to abandon the “All Weather” designation for the two new Marine Phantom squadrons, and in August they were redesignated as VMFA-314 and VMFA-315, adding the “Attack” function which fundamentally changed the nature of the Phantom’s designated role from that of a pure interceptor. Although the Phantom had

already (at least unofficially) become something far more than a fighter, it was this seemingly minor change that effectively enshrined the Phantom’s versatility forever. It was during August 1964 that North Vietnamese patrol boats intercepted the USS Maddox and C.Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin, causing an incident that marked the very beginning of the long and murderous Vietnam War. The US Navy’s carriers were already in the region at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and four F-8 Crusaders from the USS Ticonderoga were dispatched to fend-off the Vietnamese attackers. A second incident soon followed and President Johnson agreed with Pentagon planners that a retaliatory strike should be made. Attack aircraft from two

F-4 PHANTOM | 33 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 33

05/01/2015 19:50

Marine Fighting Squadron 314 (VMF-314) was commissioned on October 1st 1943 at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, with the nickname ‘Bob’s Cats’. The squadron was assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 32 (MAG 32) flying the F4U Corsair and began training immediately for combat in the South Pacific. In 1961, the squadron became the first Marine squadron to transition to the (then) new F-4B Phantom II and was designated VMFA-314. Between 1961 and 1964, the squadron deployed eight times. These deployments included three separate carrier deployments and a single-flight aerial refueling mission spanning the Pacific Ocean from MCAS El Toro to Naval Air Station Atsugi, Japan. In 1965, VMFA-314 joined the USS Valley Forge (CV-45) for combat operations in the Republic of Vietnam. From 1965 to 1970 the squadron flew more than 25,000 combat hours out of Chu Lai and Da Nang airfields, and employed more than 100 million pounds of ordnance in support of the Marine rifleman and other Allied ground units. During September 1970, VMFA-314 ended forty-nine months of deployed combat operations and received the Meritorious Unit Commendation for its outstanding performance. During May 1982, the squadron’s last F-4 was transferred in preparation for transition to the new F/A-18 Hornet and in 1982, VMFA-314 received the first of its F/A-18s, becoming the first tactical squadron in the Marine Corps and Navy to employ the Hornet. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) carriers duly bombed North Vietnamese patrol boats, coastal bases and an oil storage facility, with Phantoms from VF-142 and VF-143 flying BARCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol) as part of the operation. The Phantom’s main task was to place a barrier between the US forces and any potential air threats, and in effect this often meant escorting attack missions - a distinctly undemanding task for a relatively sophisticated aircraft. Rarely did the Phantom crews encounter any MiGs and when VF-114 and VF-213 intercepted (and destroyed) two ancient An-2 biplanes, the absurdity of the situation was clear, as the AIM-7 Sparrow missiles used to destroy the Antonovs were considerably more expensive than their targets. However, some “action” did occur and on 9 April 1965 the first MiG was successfully downed, courtesy of VF-96. Unfortunately, the interceptor then became the intercepted and F-4B 151403 was lost, either due to the actions of another MiG pilot, or an errant Sparrow missile. In fact there was a great deal of uncertainty surrounding this incident and the first official MiG kill was therefore attributed to VF-21, with two MiGs being destroyed courtesy of a Phantom’s Sparrow missiles on 17 June, a third MiG probably being destroyed by the ensuing debris. Although the Navy’s F-4s were ostensibly assigned to the interceptor role, by 1965 they were also being used for attack support

VF-151’s F-4B 153065 returned to Miramar NAS from South East Asia during March 1973, complete with artwork applied to the aircraft’s radome. Note the luggage pod under the starboard wing. (Photo: Paul Minert collection)

missions, even if this was still regarded as a secondary capability. In complete contrast the US Marine Corps had regarded the Phantom as a “mud mover” from the very start, its fighter capability being just part of the aircraft’s broader abilities. The first Marine Phantoms landed on Vietnamese soil during April 1965, when VMFA-531 arrived at Da Nang, ready to support Marine troops out “in

the field” across the region. Initially, the Marine Phantom crews did little more than provide moral support (and a lot of sooty smoke) but supplies of low-drag bombs were slowly made available and additional ordnance was often “borrowed” from Navy units, so that by 1966 the Marine Phantoms were a substantial part of America’s presence in Vietnam, with as many as four squadrons being present “in

34

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 34

05/01/2015 19:50

F-4 Phantom

VMF(AW)-232 transitioned to the F-4 during 1967 whilst being based at MCAS El Toro. Redesignated as Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 232, the squadron returned to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan. In March 1969, the squadron deployed to MAG 13 at Chu Lai, Vietnam, in support of ground operations. They returned to Iwakuni in late 1969. In April 1972, the entire squadron redeployed from Japan to Vietnam with minimum notice to counter the spring offensive of that year. After a three-month stay at DaNang, VMFA-232 moved its operations to Royal Thai Air Base Nam Phong, Thailand. From here the unit played a key fighter role on Operation Linebacker missions over North Vietnam. During September 1973 the ‘Red Devils’ became the last Marine squadron to leave the Vietnam War. In October 1977 VMFA-232 returned to MCAS Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, after an 11-year absence and during October 1986, the unit completed the sixth, and tour of the Western Pacific with the F-4 Phantom. In December 1988, VMFA-232 transferred their last F-4 to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. (Photo: Masumi Wada via Paul Minert) theatre” at times. Although the Phantom had arrived in Vietnam as an interceptor, it was as an interdictor that the aircraft proved its worth, destroying targets behind enemy lines, disrupting surface force movements and directly supporting troops as required. The Phantom could carry twice the weapons load of the diminutive A-4 Skyhawk that provided the backbone of the USMC’s offensive capability and it was of course in a completely different class when compared to the venerable Skyraider that struggled-on in the attack role in limited numbers until 1967. The Navy also had the A-6 Intruder, and this was of course an outstanding bomber but despite its capabilities there were simply not enough examples available, and so the new Phantom with its good performance and outstanding weapons-carrying capability inevitably formed the major portion of the USMC’s strike and attack efforts in SE Asia. In reality, both the USMC and US Navy already had an established preference for offensive rather than defensive capacity, and although the role of the fighter/interceptor was obviously regarded as important (and often vital), it was also believed that the nature of the war being conducted in SE Asia was such that air supremacy could often be taken for granted. It was therefore almost inevitable that the Phantom would soon become much more of a bomber with a fighter capability, than vice versa. It was also a period when the

VF-121 received its first F4H-1 Phantoms during December 1960 when the unit was based at NAS Miramar in California. The unit was assigned responsibility for the training of all Pacific Fleet F-4 crews and continued in this role intil September 1980. In April 1967 the unit became the first West Coast squadron to acquire the F-4J variant of the Phantom, as illustrated here by 155901, seen during January 1976. (Photo: Carlton A. Eddy via Paul Minert) F-8 Crusader began to disappear from the front line and although the fleet-wide mix of Phantoms and Crusaders was almost equal in 1965, just three years later (when fighting in the North ended) it had shifted to an 80-20 mix in favour of the Phantom. Although the Crusader (in its F-8E form) did have an attack capability, the Crusader was flown in Vietnam almost exclusively as a fighter and by 1968 the aircraft had demonstrated a fifty percent

advantage over the Phantom in terms of MiG victories, thereby destroying the notion that the more modern two-man Phantom would inevitably deliver better results. The Crusader’s performance in the region served to dispel a growing belief that the Phantom was at a disadvantage for not being fitted with a gun of some description. The gun-armed Crusader achieved only one kill with its cannon and it was the AIM-9

F-4 PHANTOM | 35 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 35

05/01/2015 19:50

A colourful quartet of Phantoms pictured during June 1978. VX-4 and the Pacific Missile Test Center assembled this unique formation comprising of F-4J 153783 ‘Vandy One’, F-4J 153795 ‘XF-6’, QF-4B 148365 ‘PMTC-40’, and F-4B 150435 June 1978. (Photo: US Navy)

Sidewinder that had achieved almost every victory. Despite this fact, the USMC and USN Phantom crews still became increasingly convinced that the Phantom did need a gun, even though McDonnell had deliberately designed the F-4 as a missile carrier. The only solution to this perceived need was an external gun fit, and this was soon made available in the form of the Hughes Mk.IV pod, however experience with this weapon demonstrated that it was neither accurate nor reliable, and ill-suited to punishing carrier recoveries. Perhaps more importantly, it occupied the Phantom’s centerline weapons station that normally supported an external fuel tank. With a gun fitted, the necessary additional fuel had to be carried in a tank under each wing and this meant that two vitally important weapons pylons were therefore lost as a result. Consequently, although there was a belief that an internal gun would have been a great advantage for close-in fighting, almost every naval F-4 fighter mission was flown with only Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles for armament. The wing-mounted tanks were also found to be less-than ideal for catapult launches, as they affected the aircraft’s centre of gravity, therefore for most strike missions (the term “strike” not having the British connotations of nuclear delivery of course) the wing stations were loaded with Mk.82 bombs (mounted on triple ejector racks) or Mk.84 bombs for “harder” targets. From March 1966 the Marines began mounting “Alpha” attacks, which often comprised of up to thirty attack and support aircraft, although they could

sometimes be much smaller in size. They were mounted against pre-selected targets and because of the logistical effort required to select these targets, they were often bombed even if weather conditions deteriorated, and this sometimes required the Phantom crews to abandon established dive bombing tactics in favour of level bombing, a reliable means of destroying a target but also a very good way of falling victim to enemy AAA fire. As SAM capability increased, the risk of being shot-down became even higher, although the risk was not judged to be any greater than for any other USN/USMC aircraft type in the

theatre. Losses dropped significantly when a pause in bombing began in March 1968, but when operations were resumed in December 1971 it wasn’t long before losses began to rise dramatically again. In order to suppress AAA fire as much as possible, many attack missions introduced an additional “Flack Flight” comprising of two Phantoms that would go in ahead of the main strike package to take-out as much of the AAA as possible, usually through the use of Mk.82 bombs or with Rockeye CBUs (Cluster Bomb Units). Ultimately, some 71 US Navy Phantoms were lost in combat and 53 of these

36

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 36

05/01/2015 19:50

F-4 Phantom

As of January 1990 VX-4 ended its association with the Phantom, but the unit’s all-black aircraft had now become something of a tradition. The paint scheme was therefore handed-over to an F-14A Tomcat, and the F-4 was placed in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB. Former “Black Bunny” F-4J 153783 subsequently re-emerged from storage for conversion to F-4J(UK) standard, and was transferred to the RAF. (Photo: US Navy). ◄ Undoubtedly the most famous aircraft to have operated with VX-4 (and perhaps the US Navy as a whole), F-4J 153783 received an eye-catching glossy black paint scheme, whilst retaining the unit’s standard markings and codes. Rather oddly, the aircraft is pictured at NAS Moffett Field with white-painted external fuel tanks, although these may have been taken from another aircraft in the fleet. Subsequently, other aircraft were repainted in the same all-black paint scheme (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

▼►In celebration of the US Navy’s bicentennial in 1976, numerous USAF and USN aircraft were painted in colourful markings. VX-4 joined-in and treated F-4J 153088 to this eye-catching paint scheme. (Photos: Tim McLelland & Paul Minert collections)

F-4 PHANTOM | 37 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 37

05/01/2015 19:51

Pictured in front of a typically Hawaiian landscape, an F-4S received attention from ground crew at Kaneohe Bay MCAS. The unit’s Phantoms were based here until February 1898 when the aircraft were deployed to Nellis AFB for a final exercise before withdrawal and replacement by F/A-18 Hornets. VMFA-235 was the last active duty naval fighter squadron to fly the Phantom. (Photo: US Navy)

A Phantom RIO’s-eye view of an F-4J pictured on approach to Point Mugu NAS during 1982, flaps and wing slats extended. The glossy Light Gull Gray paint scheme is interrupted only by the darker anti-skid panels above the intake trunks and inner wing. (Photo: US Navy) 38

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 38

05/01/2015 19:51

F-4 Phantom F-4S 157286 was a long-time resident at Patuxent River NAS, Maryland, with the Naval Air Test Center. The aircraft ended its days in open storage (wearing ‘Marines’ titles) at Davis Monthan AFB. Of note is the non-standard instrumentation boom attached to the radome. (Photo: US Navy)

Like many other US Navy, USMC and USAF units, VMFA-321 applied dazzling markings to F-4B 150628 during 1976, repeating the process with F-4S 153904 in 1991 when the unit disposed of its Phantoms. (Photos: Paul Minert collection & Don Spering) ► VF-302 was activated on 21st May 1971at Naval Air Station Miramar, California. From its inception until November 1973 the unit operated the F-8L Crusader, after which the unit re-equipped with F-4B Phantoms. Like their sister squadron VF-301, VF-302’s time with the F-4B was short, and the squadron moved to the F-4N in January 1975. After four years operating the F-4N, VF-302 began to receive the Grumman F-14A Tomcat in February 1985. VF-302 was disestablished on 11 September 1994. (Photo: Michael Grove via Paul Minert) succumbed to AAA fire. Many commentators have concluded that the Phantom was often employed against relatively unsophisticated targets and that the policy of pitting a hugely expensive warplane against targets of questionable strategic value was flawed, but despite this, both the USN and USMC Phantom units were a major part of the long conflict in SE Asia, flying Alpha Strikes, BARCAP missions, TARCAP missions (Target Combat Air Patrol, in which additional Phantoms remained in the target vicinity after strike force’s exit, to deter enemy fighters), and MiGCAP missions, that required either two or four Phantoms to be held on Combat Air

Patrol near MiG bases, maintaining cover against MiG launches as strike forces arrived. The arrival of the F-4J marked the first major increase in the Phantom’s capabilities. The F-4J’s better radar, reduced approach speed (125 knots), improved missile compatibility and good ECCM (Electronic Counter-Counter Measures) were put to good use in Vietnam as new-build aircraft entered service from 1967 onwards and by the end of the conflict the US

Navy and USMC had an impressive 448 Phantoms on strength, 21 squadrons operating the F-4J. By this stage the Navy was already looking towards acquisition of an even more capable fighter in the shape of the F-14 Tomcat, but the ending of the war in Vietnam was by no means the end of the Phantom’s association with the service that had solicited it; More than a decade later the Phantom was still very much in business. v

F-4 PHANTOM | 39

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 39

05/01/2015 19:52

The Spectre of Success The United States Air Force adopts the Navy’s Phantom

An impressive nose-on view of the F-4G, armed with two AGM-45 Shrike anti-radiation missiles. Clearly visible here are the non-slip walkway areas (outlined in dark grey paint) on the inner wings, fuselage trunks and upper fuselage. (Photo: USAF) 40

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 40

05/01/2015 19:53

F-4 Phantom

T

raining with their USAF counterparts, the Navy crews enjoyed every opportunity to hone their interception skills, but much to the disappointment of the Air Force pilots, almost every encounter served to emphasise the superiority of the (then) new F4H-1. Good though the F-106 was, the Phantom was undeniably better. It could carry four Sparrow missiles (or more) from an aircraft carrier, fly out to a combat radius of 700 miles and destroy incoming enemy aircraft in BVR (Beyond Visual Range) conditions. It could also carry a hefty load of bombs or other ordnance without affecting its fighting capability and in 1960 this was more than any other aircraft could offer, and as the Air Force’s Colonel Alfred Uhalt Jr. subsequently commented, there was “nothing else on the horizon” at that time. Colonel Uhalt was one of a number of USAF officers who became involved in a “fly-off” comparison between the Phantom and the F-106 (an exercise named Operation Highspeed). He flew the F4H-1 at NAS Oceana during October 1961, taking the aircraft through a series of demanding exercises to see just how well the aircraft really did perform. He concluded that the Phantom was every bit as good as the Navy had boasted and that there was no other aircraft in sight that could hope to offer the same kind of performance. When compared to the F-106, the F4H-1 had a 70 percent better maintenance ratio of man-hours per flying-hour, better speed, altitude and range, and an ability to carry up to 22,500lb of bombs or other weapons. The Air Force swallowed its collective pride and accepted that the Navy had got themselves a greatly superior aircraft, and that it was now time for

The F-110A was the USAF’s original designation for what was to become the F-4C. On September 18th 1962, the USAF and U.S. Navy aircraft designation systems were combined into a single scheme, and the USAF F-110A and U.S. Navy F4H-1 became F-4C and F-4B, respectively.  Operation Highspeed was a fly-off competition between the USAF F-106A and the U.S. Navy F4H-1 (F-4B) and resulted in a convincing win for the F4H-1. The USAF was loaned two U.S. Navy aircraft (BuNo 149405 and 149406) for a 120-day extended evaluation on January 24th 1962. Twenty-seven more F-4Bs were eventually loaned to the USAF for service evaluation, most of which were returned to the U.S. Navy after the F-4C entered production.  (Photo: USAF) a Navy aircraft to be procured for the Air Force. By the end of 1961 an Air Force derivative of the F4H-1 aircraft had been drawn-up, after mission requirements and performance specifications had been agreed with McDonnell. It was a “minimum change” design, retaining the naval folding wing system (although this was obviously unnecessary for the USAF), the arrestor hook

(but not the catapult bridle attachments), the J-79 engine (albeit with a cartridge starting system) and other basic equipment. Martin-Baker Mk.7 ejection seats were stipulated and the rear cockpit was to be fitted with dual controls so that a “Pilot Systems Operator” could act as both a second pilot and radar/systems operator as required by the demands of any given

An Early F-4C carrying two Bullpup missiles. Bullpup was the first mass-produced air-to-surface command guided missile, first deployed by the United States Navy in 1959 as the ASM-N-7 until it was re-designated AGM-12B in 1962. When the missile was employed in South East Asia, found that the warhead of the AGM-12 was not sufficiently effective against some targets, especially the substantial concrete bridges in North Vietnam. However, against some targets the missile proved its worth, not least when a missile was guided into the cave entrance of a large ammuntition storage facility dug into a mountain. The Bullpup had a Manual Command Line of Sight guidance system with roll stabilization. In flight the pilot or weapons operator tracked the Bullpup by using a flare on the back of the missile and used a control joystick to steer it towards the target using radio signals. It was initially powered by a solid fuel rocket motor, and carried a 250 lb (110 kg) warhead. After launch, accuracy was maintained by continuing to fly the same track, so that the pilot could sight the smoke trail and steer the missile from directly behind. Unfortunately, gunners on the ground could simply fire at the smoke trail of the missile’s flare and have a fairly good chance of hitting the aircraft that had launched it. (Photo: USAF) F-4 PHANTOM | 41 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 41

05/01/2015 19:53

During July 1967, the 4th TFS deployed from Eglin AFB to Ubon RTAFB, Thailand, and was re-designated as the 435th TFS, equipped with F-4D Phantoms The unit participated in every phase of the war in Southeast Asia flying over 15,000 successful combat missions and were credited with destroying six enemy aircraft in the air. F-4D 60-234 is pictured during the Vietnam war, carrying a pair of GBU-10 laser-guided bombs. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

Having been inactive for nearly two decades, the 43d Tactical Fighter Squadron was re-established at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida during January 1964 with a fleet of F-84 Thunderstreaks. The unit soon converted onto the F-4 Phantom and in August 1965, deployed toClark Air Base, Philippines, where they were assigned to the reserve support of the 47th Tactical Fighter Squadron, flying combat missions over Southeast Asia from Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. In November 1965, the unit became the first fighter squadron assigned to Cam Ranh Air Base, South Vietnam, with an advance party arriving on 28th October. During its time in Southeast Asia, the squadron flew 1,207 combat missions and earned the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award for its service. In January 1966, the 43rd TFS returned to MacDill AFB, to act as an F-4 replacement training unit until March 1970. In June 1970 the 43 TFS was moved to Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, under the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing. The squadron was one of two units assigned to Alaskan Air Command. Flying the F-4E Phantom II, the 43d inherited a dual mission of Alaskan air defense and close air support for U.S. Army forces. In 1982, the 43d became the first squadron to convert to the F-15 Eagle.  (Photo: USAF)

mission. The early naval aircraft’s highpressure tyres were deemed unsuitable for USAF operations, and a new wheel and tyre assembly was devised, incorporating an anti-skid braking system that would ensure that the aircraft could recover safely even on wet runways. This resulted in a bulged fairing on the upper wing above the wheel well, to accommodate the larger wheel assembly, although in all other respects the aircraft remained outwardly similar to the Navy’s F-4B. The only other evidence of the switch from naval traditions was the deletion of the retractable refueling probe assembly, in exchange for a standard USAF socket that was installed on the aircraft’s dorsal spine. Although the USAF had no need for it, the infra-red housing under the nose radome was also retained, simply to ease McDonnell’s production and design burden. Radar was

modified to APQ-100 standard to aid ground mapping and also introduced a range strobe system for manual bombing, and the Navy’s AJB-3 nuclear bombing system equipment was replaced by the AJB-7 all-altitude system that would enable the aircraft to deliver atomic weapons both in level and loft manoeuvres. This new variant of the Phantom was duly designated (by the USAF) as the F-110A Specter and while McDonnell embarked upon the first production batch of aircraft (583 were eventually manufactured) the USAF temporarily obtained a fleet of 29 F4H-1F aircraft from the US Navy so that early evaluation and training could get underway. The first two examples from this fleet were 149405 and 149406, both standard Navy F-4H-1F aircraft that were transferred to Langley AFB in Virginia on 24th January 1962, resplendent in standard US Navy Gull Grey

and white colours but with USAF titling and “F-110A” applied on their noses (even though they patently were not F-110 Specters). Despite the gloomy weather on that day, the arrival of the two F-4 aircraft at Langley was a cause for celebration, marking the beginning of the USAF’s very long and successful relationship with the Phantom that would continue more than half a century later. The initial batch of F4H-1F aircraft was delivered to MacDill AFB in Florida, where the 4453rd Combat Crew Training Wing took-on responsibility for initial training on the type. The first Phantom arrived at MacDill on 11th February 1963, and as of 18th September 1962 the F4H-1 became the F-4B as part of the change in military designations that were introduced on that date. The first new-build aircraft for the USAF arrived at MacDill on 20th November 1963 although by this stage

42

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 42

05/01/2015 19:53

F-4 PHANTOM

The 497th Fighter Interceptor Squadron was assigned to the 16th Air Force in Europe, based at Torrejon AB in Spain.  The unit operated the F-86D until the arrival of the F-102A in April 1960.  The F-102A remained with the 497th FIS until they were replaced by the F-4C in 1964.  Concurrently, the 497th FIS moved to George AFB in California as a Tactical Fighter Squadron. In December 1965 the 497th TFS moved to Ubon RTAFB in Thailand as part of the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing.  Still flying the F-4C, the 497th TFS flew combat missions over Vietnam for the next eight years.  While there, the unit developed night mission tactics during ‘Night Owl FAC (Forward Air Control) and interdiction missions.  In 1974 the 497th TFS was deactivated when the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing moved to Kunsan AB in Korea.  The unit was reactivated in 1978 at Taegu AB in Korea, where it remained until deactivation in 1988. (Photo: Donald S. McGarry via Paul Minert) The 480 TFS was established in 1957, flying  F-100 Super Sabres, followed by F-84F Thunderstreaks. In 1963 it was re-equipped with F-100s, but withdrawn from France upon request of French government. Reassigned to Hollomon AFB, New Mexico, it was re-equipped with F-4C Phantoms. The squadron was deployed to Da Nang Air Base, South Vietnam in 1966 as part of USAF buildup in Southeast Asia and was engaged in combat operations from 1966 to 1971. In 1969 the squadron moved to Phu Cat Air Base (F-4C illustrated, carrying napalm bombs), from where the unit scored nine MiG kills, including the first MiG21 kill of the war. The continued drawdown of United States forces from Vietnam resulted in the inactivation of 37th TFW at Phu Cat AB on 31st March 1970. On 20th October 1971 the 480th TFS flew its last combat mission, and although the unit’s F-4Ds were scheduled for redeployment to Holloman AFB, they were distributed to bases throughout Southeast Asia. The 480th began service again in 1976 with the 52d Tactical Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany, flying F-4D Phantom followed by F-4Gs as part of the Wild Weasel mission. In 1987, the 480th received the F-16. (Photo: USAF)

Aerial view of the 8th TFW’s operational area at Ubon RTAFB in Thailand, during 1966, eight aircraft visible within the revetments. (Photo: USAF)

This F-4E from the 57th FIS was pictured after having suffered a major in-flight emergency, the aircraft’s wing tips having folded whilst in flight. Although extremely rare, this occurrence affected various Phantoms during the type’s service life and thanks to the Phantom’s excellent handling qualities, the aircraft was inevitably recovered to land safely. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) F-4 PHANTOM | 43 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 43

05/01/2015 19:54

F-4E from the 36th TFW pictured at Bitburg AB during 1967 (Photo: Angelo Romano via Paul Minert) the Air Force’s F-110 designation had been abandoned in exchange for the more logical “F-4C” description, and although the F-4C was still officially known as the “Specter” in many official circles, the name was never adopted by the USAF air and ground crews, and it was eventually dropped. By the end of 1964 MacDill was home to two Tactical Fighter Wings (the 12th and 15th), both equipped with the F-4C, the early F-4B aircraft having eventually been returned to the US Navy. The Phantom settled into USAF service with few difficulties, and the crews at MacDill were delighted with the aircraft both from a handling point of view and serviceability. Despite being a fast and sophisticated machine, the Phantom demonstrated a reliability that was significantly better than that exhibited by the contemporary “Century Series” aircraft, partly because of its twin-engine configuration but also because of its relatively simple and rugged design. The USAF crews were thrilled both by the aircraft’s performance and the range of on-board systems at their disposal, but there were some problems too, not least the ample proportions of the Phantom’s cockpit that made life difficult for some of the pilots. Because the Navy had a more stringent selection procedure for selecting crew within a specific height and weight category, it was the USAF that discovered that some pilots were simply a little too short for the Phantom’s (relatively) spacious accommodation, and reaching the brake/ rudder pedals could sometimes only be achieved at the expense of losing adequate forward view, by lowering the ejection seat. For many crews, Phantom flying involved a

The 57th FIS was for many years equipped with F-102 Delta Daggers, based at Keflavik NAS in Iceland. The F-4C was assigned to the squadron from 16th April 1973, after TAC began replacing the F-4E with F-4E models after the end of the Vietnam War. By 30th June, the squadron had six F-4Cs and additional F-4s were received in the third quarter of 1974. The last of the F-102s were replaced in early 1975 when additional F-4Cs were received from TAC squadrons at Luke AFB and George AFB, with the last F-4C arriving in March 1976. In early 1978 the first two F-4E aircraft arrived and the last F-4Cs left on 14th June. In 1985 the Phantoms were finally replaced by F-15 Eagles. (Photo: Paul Minert collection) great deal of seat adjustment and periods of less-than comfortable conditions in order to confidently handle the big beast. In contrast to the Navy’s concept of a pilot and RIO crew set-up, the Air Force’s two-pilot arrangement seemed vaguely absurd, and it was no surprise that the USAF’s “Pilot Systems Operators” didn’t last for long. Although it was a good concept for initial training purposes, it was far less practical for operational effectiveness, especially when so much of the USAF’s Phantom doctrine was geared towards offensive (attack) operations

rather than defensive fighter tactics, all of which required a great deal of navigation work, systems operation and attention to on-board equipment. The F-4C was delivered with dual controls although the rear cockpit’s controls were rather rudimentary when compared to the front cockpit. The PSOs (or Guy In Back” as they were inevitably referred-to) were afforded every opportunity to fly the aircraft, but in an operational scenario there was obviously no reason for them to perform any flying at all, as their primary tasks were systems operation

44

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 44

05/01/2015 19:55

F-4 PHANTOM 561st TFS F-4Gs carrying AN/ALQ-119 pods, AGM-45 Shrike missiles, and an AGM-78 Standard ARM (Anti Radiation Missile). (Photo: USAF)

(particularly radar and weapons) and navigation. The PSOs did certainly have their own “empire” in the Phantom’s rear seat, controlling radar, inertial navigation, weapons and more, but they still regarded themselves as pilots first and foremost, and most PSOs resented the notion that they were somehow regarded as inferior to the pilots in the front seats. Within a few years the USAF accepted that the concept didn’t make much sense, and a new breed of non-pilot specialist Weapons Systems Operators (WSOs) began to be introduced and only instructor pilots continued to occupy the Phantom’s rear cockpit when necessary. However, before this change finally took place, the Phantom crews were to learn many hard lessons in the skies over South East Asia that developed and honed operational tactics. Shortly after MacDill’s two Wings had built-up to full strength, the looming conflict in Vietnam began to dominate operations. The first USAF unit to deploy to SE Asia was the 12th TFW’s 555th Tactical Fighter Squadron, assuming a TDY (Temporary Duty) deployment to Naha, Okinawa, from 8th December 1964 until 18th March of the following year as a preliminary exercise, designed to establish procedures for operating the Phantom far away from the US mainland in variable weather conditions. It was also necessary to establish effective procedures for the long trans-Atlantic deployments and the logistical back-up that would be needed to support both the

aircraft’s technical needs and the personnel who would fly and maintain them. It was the 45th TFS that was the first to go into action, performing the USAF’s first strike missions in the region and also claiming the first MiG victories. On 10th July 1965 a flight of four F-4Cs from this unit (based at Ubon RTAFB in Thailand) were escorting F-105 strike aircraft on a mission, with a plan to introduce a new tactic. The North Vietnamese pilots had determined that the strike aircraft were at their most vulnerable when they were preparing to release weapons, being bound

by the constraints of delivery heights, angles and other techniques. Recognising that this point in the mission was the one at which enemy attack was most likely, the Phantom pilots split into two elements, the lead pair electing to save fuel by avoiding the use of afterburner. The rear pair flew a series of “S” manoeuvres and, as expected, a flight of MiG-17s duly appeared. The ensuing dogfight was too tight to employ Sparrow missiles, but Sidewinders resulted in the destruction of two MiGs, much to the delight of the crews and USAF chiefs. The only negative aspect of

37th TFW F-4Gs at George AFB in California. The two aircraft in the foreground illustrate the USAF’s final paint schemes applied to the Phantom. The green/grey ‘European One’ scheme was progressively replaced by the ‘Hill Project’ scheme (evolved from trials conducted at Hill AFB) comprising of various shades of light grey. (Photo: USAF) F-4 PHANTOM | 45 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 45

05/01/2015 19:55

The 58th Tactical Training Wing at Luke AFB in Arizona comprised of three Phantom advanced training squadrons in the 1970s. Their F-4C aircraft occasionally appeared with high-visibility stripe markings across the aircraft fuselages, designed to enhance the aircraft’s visibility during air combat maneouvring exercises. From 1977 the wing started to transition onto the F-15 Eagle and by 1982 Phantom operations at Luke AFB had ended. (Photos: USAF & Paul Minert collection) this early encounter was the first hint that the Phantom really ought to have been fitted with a gun – an issue that was already occupying the minds of many naval Phantom pilots. By the end of that same year some four F-4C squadrons were in-theatre and little over a year later this force had doubled in size. The Rolling Thunder campaign of 1965 saw the USAF’s Phantoms become increasingly involved in strike missions, with fighter cover becoming an increasingly secondary task. By the end of Rolling Thunder the Phantom had virtually replaced the F-105 as the USAF’s main strike platform and the Phantom crews were assigned to missions both in the North (where routine missions often involved the delivery of up to six 750lb bombs per aircraft) and in the South, where aircraft were mostly employed in support of ground operations, often under the guidance of Forward Air Controllers, and with an array of ordnance at their disposal. In this region the Phantom also eventually replaced the F-100D Super Sabre and in the latter days of the Vietnam War, the Phantom became established as the most numerous and most significant combat aircraft in the region. Like the Navy, the USAF quickly realised that the

Sparrow missile was far from ideal for combat operations in Vietnam, even in a muchmodified form. The Sidewinder AAM became the weapon of choice for aerial combat almost by default, although it was the absence of a gun that was the Phantom’s most obvious flaw. However, even without a suitable gun, the USAF’s Phantom crews soon began to score some very significant aerial victories in addition to performing their duties as strike aircraft. Unlike the Navy, the USAF was able to embrace the use of gun power through the use of an external gun pod, unencumbered by the punishment of regular carrier launches and recoveries. The SUU-16/A pod housed an M61A1 20mm Gatling-type gun, capable of delivering up to 6,000 rounds per minute. Designed for air-to-ground operations, the USAF quickly realised that the weapon could also be employed in the air-to-air role and combat trials were performed under the leadership of Col. Frederick Blesse, Deputy Commander of Operations for the 366th TFW. He concluded that the gun was ideal for aerial combat but others disagreed, including the legendary Colonel Robin Olds, who believed that the gun would be used

carelessly and result in damage to “friendly” as well as enemy aircraft. This view might have been more valid if proof of a similar risk didn’t already apply to the Sidewinder. This missile was also prone to inadvertent misuse and on one occasion an F-105 had returned from a mission with parts of a Sidewinder missile still stuck in its tail fin. The USAF decided to adopt the gun for aerial combat use and it quickly proved to be a great asset, providing the all-important close-in kill capability that the Sparrow (and even the Sidewinder on occasions) couldn’t deliver. During periods of frenzied combat activity, 1967 saw the combat debut of the F-4D, a new variant of the Phantom designed for the USAF’s needs, based largely on experience that was being gathered in Vietnam. It was outwardly similar to the F-4C and even the redundant RHAWS (Radar Homing And Warning System) fairing under the nose was again retained, but not on all aircraft, which rendered some aircraft outwardly similar to the Navy’s F-4J. However, internally it featured many useful improvements, not least its ability to deliver Precision-Guided Munitions (PGMs or “smart” bombs). From the outset it could carry the

46

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 46

05/01/2015 19:55

F-4 Phantom The 52 Fighter Wing became host wing at Spangdahlem AB in Germany in December 1971, inheriting tactical squadrons from the 36 TFW at nearby Bitburg AB. The wing participated in numerous tactical exercises and operations as part of both USAFE and Nato and provided close air support, interdiction, and base defence capabilities. The wing also co-operated with other Nato forces in frequent squadron exchange programmess and hosted US-based units on temporary duty in Europe. In January 1973, a Wild Weasel defense suppression mission was added to the wing’s role, and after October 1985 (operating the F-4G) defence suppression became the wing’s sole tactical mission. In 1987, the wing acquired F-16s and became the first wing to integrate F-16Cs with F-4Gs to form hunter/killer teams within individual fighter squadrons. It deployed aircraft and personnel to strategic locations in Saudi Arabia and Turkey in support of the liberation and defense of Kuwait from September 1990 to March 1993. Twards the end of 1992, the wing began receiving A/OA-10 aircraft and received F-15 Eagles in 1994, at which stage the last Phantoms were withdrawn. (Photos: USAF)

SUU-16/A pod and also the later, gaspropelled SUU-23/A. The avionics suite was new, and with a new optical gun sight and the AN/ASQ-90 automatic Weapons Release Computer System, the F-4D was acclaimed as a much more effective fighting machine, enabling crews to employ a radar-assisted “dive-toss” delivery manoeuvre that improved bombing accuracy and crew survivability. First flown on 9th December 1965, the first examples went to Warner-Robins AFB in March 1966 before joining the 36th TFW at Bitburg in Germany, where they quickly took on the USAF’s nuclear strike alert responsibility. The 33rd TWF at Eglin AFB received F-4Ds in June 1966 and by the spring of the following year the first examples were making their way to Ubon. As part of the type’s introduction, the USAF opted to abandon the trusty AIM-9B Sidewinder missile in favour of the Hughes AIM-4D Falcon, a small but potent missile weighing some 134 lb that could reach out to six miles at a speed of Mach 3. Designed primarily for the USAF’s NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), the Falcon was attached to the F-4D by means of a rather clumsy LAU-42 launcher that also

housed the nitrogen that was necessary to cool the missile’s infra-red seeker. Unfortunately the weapon was far from ideal for combat use in Vietnam as it required cooling time that was often not available in the midst of combat, and once the available nitrogen was used-up, the missile was inoperable. It had a 40lb warhead that was twice the size of the Sidewinder’s but crucially it required a direct hit in order to destroy its target, unlike the Sidewinder that had a proximity fuse. However the Falcon did achieve some considerable success after it was introduced into the F-4D fleet in 1968 and in-theatre TAC (tactical Air Command) aircraft were regularly “tooled up” with a mix of four AIM-7D Sparrows and four AIM-4D Falcons, together with an SUU-23/A gun pod under the aircraft’s belly. It was probably the attitude of the TAC crews that helped to

► The 110th TFS traded-in its F-100 aircraft for F-4C Phantoms in 1978, acquiring aircraft that were primarily Vietnam War veterans returned from Southeast Asia. The more advanced F-4E was introduced 1985 (an F-4E sporting the short-lived ‘European One’ paint scheme is illustrated) and in 1991 the unit re-equipped with F-15 Eagles. (Photo: USAF) F-4 PHANTOM | 47 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 47

05/01/2015 19:55

48

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 48

05/01/2015 19:56

F-4 Phantom

The USAF’s Thunderbirds team started their 1969 training season with F-100Ds, but in the spring of 1969, they received the first F-4E Phantoms and began the team’s conversion onto the type. The F-4’s introduction was the most extensive in the team’s history.  Among several other modifications, the standard Thunderbirds paint scheme had to be changed due to the variations in chemicals, which allows paint used on the F-4 to resist heat and friction at Mach Two speeds.  As a result, a new white paint base was developed and remains a part of today’s Thunderbird aircraft design on the F-16. Various F-4E airframes were assigned to the team, and some aircraft were loaned during the off-season practice period, wearing standard camouflage but with team numbers applied (in white circles) to assist with formation-keeping. As a result if the 1973 oil crisis the team gave-up its Phantoms for T-38 Talons in 1974 and the F-4Es were transferred to other units, including the AFFTC at Edwards AFB. Most of the aircraft were only partially repainted, with camouflaged fuselages, retaining the team’s white-painted wings. (Photos: Tim McLelland & Paul Minert collections)

F-4 PHANTOM | 49 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 49

05/01/2015 19:56

The F-4C and F-4D became a major part of the USAF’s Air Defense Tactical Air Command (ADTAC) through the 1980s. ADTAC embraced seven Air Force fighter units and ten Air national Guard fighter units, equipped with F-101 Voodoo and F-106 Delta Dart aircraft, and the Phantom was introduced as a replacement for both types. Most of the F-4 aircraft assigned to air defence duties were painted in an overall Air Defense Gray paint scheme, complete with full colour national insignia and eye-catching unit markings. After a decade of operations the Phantom slowly disappeared as the F-15 and F-16 were introduced into the inventory. (Photo: USAF)

In October 1979, in as part of the inactivation of Aerospace Defense Command, the USAF gained command responsibilities which shifted to Tactical Air Command (TAC) and a sub-organization equivalent to a numbered air force designated as Air Defense, Tactical Air Command (ADTAC). In 1982, the 111th FIS retired its F-101s and ADTAC supplied the unit F-4C Phantoms, to continue its air defence mission. Most of the F-4Cs the squadron received were Vietnam War veteran aircraft and in November 1986, the F-4Cs were replaced by later-model F-4Ds. In December 1989 the 111th FIS started receiving block 15 F-16C/D Fighting Falcon aircraft to replace their F-4Ds. The last F-16 arrived in April 1990. (Photo: Paul Minert collection)

The 171st FIS (Michigan Air National Guard) became an Aerospace Defense Command (ADCOM) Fighter-Interceptor squadron in 1973, equipped with F-106 Delta Dart interceptors. Subsequently, the F-106s were replaced by Phantoms, and these remained in service until 1990 when the unit received F-16s. (Photo: Paul Minert collection) secure the weapon’s eventual fate, combined with a lack of any substantial air threat. The crews did not regard the Falcon as any match for the Sidewinder, even though US-based TAC (tactical Air Command) pilots regarded the Falcon as a very effective interception weapon. But within a few years the Falcon had been relegated to use within the USAF squadrons in Europe and the Phantom units in SE Asia received new stocks of AIM-9B Sidewinders, followed (from 1972) by the improved (thermo-electric cooled) AIM-9E, which had a better lock-on field-of-view and was less prone to distraction by sunlight or water reflection. The progressive development of the Phantom didn’t end with the F-4D, indeed

the USAF had yet to receive what became the “definitive” variant of the Phantom, in the shape of the F-4E. Although this variant of the Phantom incorporated a number of improvements over the previous models (including even more powerful J-79 engines), there were two fundamental changes; the first was the introduction of Hughes CORDS equipment. The Coherent On Receive Doppler Sub-system was designed to improve the aircraft’s AMCS (Airborne Missile Control System) by filtering ground clutter from the radar image, so that small moving targets (MiGs) could be presented as clear synthesized target symbols, rather than as fuzzy radar blips that were often lost amongst the wider radar picture. The concept

promised to offer a drastic improvement in the aircraft’s interception capability, but creating such a system in a pre-digital age was far from easy, and the programme was dogged by delays until January 1968 when the project was abandoned. A more traditional AN/APQ-120 Fire Control System was substitutes, based on the AN/APQ-109 but housed in a revised nose radome which was reshaped and extended in comparison to the standard radome fitted to previous Phantom variants. The nose section was re-designed in order to accommodate the second significant modification made to the F-4E – the M61A-1 20mm gun, which had finally been incorporated into the aircraft’s internal

50

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 50

05/01/2015 19:56

F-4 Phantom North Dakota ANG’s centennial machine F-4D 66-6498. Perhaps the most colourful of all the fancy paint schemes applied to ANg Phantoms. (Photo: Paul Minert)

Although the Phantom regularly carried a centreline-mounted gun pod, Phantoms were occasionally displayed carrying two or even four pods, as illustrated. However this was purely for display purposes as the F-4 was only configured to carry one gun pod, on the centreline pylon. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) structure. With a capability to deliver up to 6,000 shells per minute and with some 640 rounds at its disposal, the gun would finally give the Phantom an effective close-in “kill” capability whilst retaining the air-to-ground capability of the pod-mounted gun that was carried by the F-4D. An additional (seventh) fuel cell was built into the aircraft’s fuselage so that the weight of the gun inside the nose could be countered, retaining the aircraft’s centre of gravity. First flight of the production-standard F-4E took place on 30th June 1967 although the YRF-4C was first modified to incorporate the F-4E’s gun and as such it became the YF-4E, flying in this configuration for the first time on 7th August 1965. The 33rd TFW at Eglin AFB was the first

Nostalgic and colourful line-up of ANG Phantom tails at the AMARC (Aircraft Maintenance And Regeneration Center) at Davis-Monthan AFB in 1990. The line-up is broken by the tail of just one non-ANG aircraft, from the AFFTC at Edwards AFB. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

unit to receive the F-4E in 1968 and in November the 40th TFS deployed to the 388th TFW at Korat AFB in Thailand to begin re-equipment of the 469th TFS. Within days the aircraft were assigned to combat missions. Meanwhile over in Europe, the F-4E was also introduced into service, replacing earlier F-4D models or other older USAF types, starting with the 32nd TFS at Soesterberg AB, where the ageing F-102s were gleefully exchanged for the new Phantoms. Initial experience with the F-4E was very positive, not only because of the introduction of the internal gun, but also because of the change in crew operations that was introduced with arrival of the F-4E, and the “Wizzo” (Weapons

Systems Officer) came into being. The concept of having two qualified pilots in each aircraft was finally dropped and in their place came a new breed of specialist navigators, weapons system operators and radar interpreters, leaving the pilot to enjoy the exclusivity of flying the aircraft (as had long been desired). It produced a much better relationship between the crews and enabled the GIB (“Guy In Back”) to become a far more skilled and capable systems operator, freed from any interest in “stick and rudder” activity. However, there was one distinct difficulty that affected the F-4E when it first entered service, and this was the performance of the gun. Although it functioned perfectly, the gun’s muzzle did not dissipate the gun’s gases

F-4 PHANTOM | 51 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 51

05/01/2015 19:56

F-4E from the 4th TFW banking to the right on arrival at Ramstein AB in Germany, during a ‘Crested Cap’ European deployment. The Phantom’s ‘SE Asia’ camouflage scheme was modified in the 1980s, the light grey undersides being replaced by an extension of the upper surface colours. The entire scheme soon gave way to the green and grey ‘European One’ camouflage design. (Photo: USAF)

The 86th TFW at Ramstein was a major operator of the Phantom, F-4E aircraft being based here with the 526th TFS (Illustrated) and 512th TFS. Both units re-equipped with F-16s from 1985 onwards. After the arrival of the F-16, Phantoms still operated from Ramstein, with various ANG units making deployments from the USA to operate in the European environment. (Photo: USAF) properly, resulting in a distinctive whistling noise and a significant number of engine flame-outs, caused by the disruption of engine intake airflow. Even in peacetime conditions the F-4E was virtually impossible to control without engine power but in South East Asia the problem was potentially lethal. A great deal of developmental work was devoted to the gun muzzle design but it took more than a year to produce a modified design that worked perfectly, resulting in the elongated Midas IV shroud that became standard on all subsequent F-4Es (and was retrofitted to many earlier aircraft). The F-4E entered USAF service in good time to make a major contribution to what was in effect the “second half” of the Vietnam War, but when Saigon was finally evacuated

in April 1975, the long (and ultimately pointless) conflict was at an end. Naval fighters covered the US withdrawal but they were not Phantoms. The USS Enterprise now operated the new F-14A Tomcat, and the Phantom was already beginning to show its age. The Phantom had been a triumphant demonstration of design technology, not least because of its all-important radar system, but by 1975 the Phantom’s radar was no longer an asset. Developments in radar technology had advanced rapidly and the Tomcat’s AWG-9 radar made the Phantom’s seemingly ancient equipment look distinctly inappropriate for the Navy’s front-line. It was therefore inevitable that the Phantom now began a long but steady process of shifting from the forefront of USN and USMC

operations into a second-line role. The same process also began to apply to the USAF, where the new F-15 Eagle was about to enter service, but although the Phantom was to undergo what might have seemed like a retirement after an operational lifespan of little more than a decade, it was in fact just the end of the first stage in a long and illustrious story. Like many other combat aircraft, the Phantom was also developed into a specialized reconnaissance variant, which served both the USAF and Marine Corps, as well as numerous export countries. The possibility of creating a reconnaissance Phantom was identified during the very early stages of the aircraft’s design, as McDonnell regarded the aircraft as a multi-role machine

52

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 52

05/01/2015 19:57

F-4 Phantom

A crew from the 119th Fighter Wing, North Dakota Air National Guard, scramble to their F-4D aircraft in its alert barn, during an exercise during the 1980s. (Photo: USAF) that would be capable of being developed into a series of sub-types, designed to perform specialized tasks, the forward fuselage section being re-configured to suit the various roles. In August 1953 McDonnell outlined the Model 94-B (the first proposed reconnaissance version) at the same time as they issued their basic fighter model. By 1961 this had been developed further into the RF-110A for the US Air Force and the F4H-1P for the US Navy, although firm interest in a reconnaissance Phantom was slow to emerge, and ultimately came about through the efforts of the Air Force as the USAF’s Colonel Cecil Rigsby (ret.) describes:“The first paper I picked up indicated that on the day before, Colonel Dyer, Reconnaissance Requirements, had signed off on the RF-105 Thunderchief as the follow-on tactical reconnaissance replacement. When I went through the document I found the RF-105 offered little if any advancement over the RF-101 Voodoo that was already in the pipeline. The cameras and sensors had to be in a bathtub affair that provided very little space. The forward shooting camera arrangement did not show the horizon and there were not enough stations to provide the necessary configurations. Also, the F-105 was old technology and the radar provided little if any low altitude navigation assistance and was primarily an air-to-air radar. I told my boss that the RF-105 was not the answer for a

follow-on tactical reconnaissance airplane and pointed out the deficiencies. I called the local McDonnell representative and asked him if he would come in and give us a briefing on the reconnaissance version of the F-110 if he had one. Again, the cameras suggested by McDonnell were nothing new but I was really surprised by the performance of the airplane. It was a 2.25 Mach airplane with a 60,000 foot altitude service ceiling, good range, two cockpits, and a very large

nose compartment when the radar was removed. “When McDonnell sensed that there was a possibility of selling the F-110 for tactical reconnaissance they immediately put 85 engineers on development of the reconnaissance version of the airplane. When General LeMay became Air Force Chief of Staff the word went out that he wanted a second source to produce fighter and reconnaissance aircraft. Buying more F-105s

The 179th FIS received RF-4Cs in January 1967 (as the 176th TRS), converting onto F-4Ds in November 1983. Phantom operations continued until late 1990 when conversion onto the F-16 was completed. (Photo: USAF)

F-4 PHANTOM | 53 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 53

05/01/2015 19:57

As a result of the 1968 Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, the USAF announced that its F-102 squadrons would be re-equipped with the more modern F-4 Phantom. The 32nd FIS at Soesterberg AB in the Netherlands was first to undergo conversion, and the unit’s F-102s were flown back to the United States for service with the Air National Guard. On 1st July 1969, the USAF re-designated the unit as the 32nd Tactical Fighter Squadron and on 6th August 1969, the first two Phantoms arrived. In 1978, the unit’s F-4s were flown to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where they were assigned to the 86th TFW, while F-15 Eagles came to Soesterberg AB. (Photo: Ton van Shaik)

Air National Guard Phantom units completed numerous deployments to Europe through the 1980s. RAF Finningley hosted some of these deployments, an F-4D from the District of Columbia ANG being illustrated here, returning from a mission over England. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) or RF-105s didn’t appeal to him. At this point the fighter people said they wanted the McDonnell F-110 and the designation of the airplane was changed to the F-4. The reconnaissance decision makers said that they wanted the RF-4. At this point the Pentagon battle began but we didn’t know it yet. The Air Council approved the F-4/RF-4 and McDonnell put about every engineer they had on these weapon systems and hired even more. The USAF had previously told McDonnell that we wanted to keep the nuclear strike capability already built into the airplane and to wire off the folding wings. Aerial refueling was the same for all F/RF-4s”. Two airframes were eventually taken from the F-4B production line (62-12200 and 62-12201) and allocated to the reconnaissance programme. The main

change to the existing airframe was the incorporation of a 33in extension to the nose section, designed to house a ground mapping radar and an array of up to six optical cameras. Without any need for missiles, the recesses under the aircraft’s fuselage that were normally required for housing the AIM-7 Sparrows were not needed and they were faired-over, resulting in a smooth and aerodynamically clean underside. In all other respects the aircraft remained essentially unchanged from the F-4B model and in July 1963 the two aircraft were rolled out from the St. Louis factory, and 62-12200 made the type’s first flight on 8th August in the hands of test pilot Bill Ross. The new RF-4C soon demonstrated that it was perfectly suited to the reconnaissance mission and that the cleaner airframe

produced an aeroplane that handled better and flew faster than any other Phantom derivative. Production of the RF-4C began in 1964, the first example making its maiden flight on 18th May and joining the USAF a month later. It was the first of 503 RF-4Cs manufactured for the USAF, followed by some 46 RF-4B aircraft for the USMC and a further 152 aircraft that were ultimately manufactured for export. The operational RF-4C was outwardly similar to the prototypes although it incorporated the F-4C’s sturdier landing gear, together with the upper wing bulges required to accommodate the larger wheels. The same refueling receptacle was installed on the aircraft’s spine and two photo flash cartridge ejector racks were fitted, one on either side of the upper fuselage, housed inside flip-out

54

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 54

05/01/2015 19:58

F-4 Phantom

▲ F-4D 66-7455 is pictured during 1973 whilst operating with the 21st TFW at Elmendorf, Alaska. The high visibility red trim was applied to various aircraft operating in the region, although it was only rarely seen on the Phantom. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

Established in June 1981 as a Tactical Fighter Squadron (having formerly operated the C-130 Hercules) the 704th Tactical Fighter Squadron was initially equipped with F-4D Phantoms, although these were replaced by F-4E Phantoms in 1989. Based at Bergstrom AFB in Texas, the unit was under the command of the 924th Tactical Fighter Group and part of the Air Force Reserve. The unit re-equipped in July 1991 with F-16C/D Falcons. (Photos: USAF)

The 20th Fighter Squadron was re- activated in 1973 as a Phantom fighter and training unit. During its final years of operation the 20th Fighter Squadron trained German Air Force pilots and weapon system operators (WSO) in support of a US/German Air Force joint training programme. On 20th December 2004, the unit was inactivated at Holloman AFB, NM and most of its aircraft were transferred to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, having been the last operational McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II squadron in the USAF. (Photo: USAF)

For those who have sufficient finances, the Collings Foundation’s F-4D 65-0749 flies from Ellington Field in Texas, appearing at air shows around the USA and affording a lucky few individuals, an opportunity to fly in the mighty Phantom. (Photo: Collings Foundation) F-4 PHANTOM | 55 †††

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 55

05/01/2015 19:58

▲ A rare picture of the RF-4C carrying what appears to be a dummy nuclear store. Initially, the RF-4C carried no weapons, and the under-fuselage Sparrow missile slots of the F-4C were omitted. However, in an emergency the RF-4C could carry a nuclear weapon on the centerline position, although the weapon was rarely (if ever) carried in USAF service. 61-2201 is pictured after completing the type’s 100th flight in November 1964. (Photo: USAF) ◄ In May 1962 the US Navy instructed McDonnell to modify six F-4Bs into YRF-110A prototypes (62-12200 and 62-12201) and RF-110A development aircraft (63-7740/7743). The mockup was reviewed in October 1962, by which time the designation of the RF-110A had been changed to RF-4C. The first YRF-4C (62-12200) completed maiden flight on August 9th 1963 with William S. Ross at the controls. This aircraft had the extended nose of the RF-4C, but was not fitted with any cameras or other reconnaissance systems. (Photo: USAF)

During 1976 the National Guard Bureau assigned the RF-4C to the Kentucky Air National Guard, and its RF-101H aircraft were retired to AMARC. The 123rd TRG attained combat-ready status within seven months. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact led to accelerated retirement plans for active duty USAF RF-4Cs and in 1988 the Kentucky Air National Guard’s Phantoms were sent to AMARC. On 9 January 1989 the 123d was officially re-designated as the 123d Tactical Airlift Wing, now equipped with C-130 transport aircraft.  (Photo: USAF)

56

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 56

05/01/2015 20:00

F-4 Phantom

In 1959, France’s decision to remove USAF nuclear-capable aircraft from the country resulted in the 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing relocating to RAF Alconbury on 20th July 1959. The unit operated its B-66 Destroyers and frequently rotated its aircraft to Toul AB, France until France’s withdrawal from Nato’s integrated structure in 1965. Also in 1965 the 10th TRW received the RF-4C and embarked upon a long association with the Phantom, conduction reconnaissance missions for the USAF and Nato throughout the UK and Europe. In 1976 two of the three component RF-4C squadrons disbanded, leaving the 1st TRS to continue Phantom operations until June 1987. (Photos: USAF & Paul Minert collection) doors. The tail fin incorporated a long-range HF antenna, and on the earliest examples delivered to the USAF the antenna was easily identifiable under a coat of white neoprene paint. The new “chisel” nose housed a KS-87 or KS-72 camera, capable of delivering an impressive six frames of film per second. Behind this equipment, a KA-56 panoramic camera offered an excellent coverage out to 1.5 miles either side of the aircraft. The smaller radome ahead of the reconnaissance gear housed an AN/APQ-99 forward-looking radar, capable of providing excellent ground mapping and terrain following and could in fact perform both functions simultaneously. The first RF-4C aircraft entered service with the 363rd Tactical reconnaissance Wing at Shaw AFB in South Carolina (the 4415th CCTS), and the eager Phantom crews quickly grew to appreciate the aircraft’s outstanding performance, both as a reconnaissance platform and as a very impressive “slick” flying machine. The United States Navy had also shared an interest in the concept of acquiring a reconnaissance derivative of the Phantom and after being spurred-on by the enthusiasm of the USAF, the services agreed on a “Photo Phantom” programme in 1962, with a plan to procure a carrier-based version of the F-4B on behalf of the US Marine Corps. The first of these was 151975, a standard F-4B converted to reconnaissance standard in the same way as the RF-4C prototypes, but without the incorporation of the F-4C’s improved undercarriage or USAF-type refueling receptacle. In most respects the RF-4B was identical to the RF-4C, apart from the incorporation of a retractable refueling probe, rotatable camera mounts and a set of telescopic steps built into the fuselage. Flying for the first time on 12th March 1965, this was the first of 12 aircraft ordered, subsequently increased to 36. Ultimately, only the USMC acquired the RF-4B because the US Navy simply didn’t have any significant requirement

Alabama ANG applied commemorative markings to one of their RF-4C aircraft during 1992, in celebration of 75 years of operations. A year later the unit celebrated 35 Years of Phantom operations by decorating RF-4C 64-1041, pictured here over downtown St. Louis, the spiritual “home” of the Phantom. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

for additional reconnaissance assets at that time. Substantial numbers of reconnaissanceconfigured RF-8A Crusaders were in service and a new fleet of very capable RA-5C Vigilantes were about to come into service, already equipped with sideways-looking radar and infra-red sensors. By contrast, the USMC was more than eager to acquire the RF-4B, and when a second batch of aircraft was eventually ordered, the later examples incorporated the F-4J’s wing bulge, drooped

ailerons and other minor alterations that had been made to late-production RF-4Cs. The final RF-4B delivery was made in December 1970, while the first were completed in 1965, with VMCJ-2 at Cherry Point and VMCJ-3 at El Toro accepting the first examples. Both units swiftly began transferring aircraft to VMCJ-1 at Iwakuni in support of operations in SE Asia, allowing the older RF-8A Crusaders to slowly be brought back to the USA for refurbishment and further use. v

F-4 PHANTOM | 57

Chapter THREE 40-57 Phantom.indd 57

05/01/2015 20:16

PHANTOM IN DETAIL

Luftwaffe F-4F Phantoms pictured high over Germany during a refueling rendezvous. (Photo: USAF)

58

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 58

05/01/2015 20:18

F-4 PHANTOM

F-4E Ejection seat details (also applicable to other USAF variants), illustrating the seat’s main components and operating mechanisms.

▼ F-4C 64-0797 “Betty V” from the 389th TFS, 366th TWF was credited with a MiG “kill” during the Vietnam War, on 26 April 1967. (www.inkworm.co.uk)

F-4 PHANTOM | 59 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 59

05/01/2015 20:18

Martin Baker Mk.7 ejection seat (courtesy Martin Baker)

60

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 60

05/01/2015 20:18

F-4 PHANTOM

These illustrations from USAF technical manuals provide data on the location of key components around the Phantom’s airframe, and show the internal layout of the aircraft, including the distribution of fuel tanks. (courtesy USAF) F-4 PHANTOM | 61 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 61

05/01/2015 20:19

62

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 62

05/01/2015 20:19

F-4 PHANTOM

The majority of these rare close-up detail photographs were captured on 7 June 1961 when the Phantom first visited Britain. F4H-1 146819 arrived at Yeovilton after making a 23-minute flight from Germany, after having appeared at the Paris Air Show. It was this visit that ultimately led to the Royal Navy’s decision to adopt the Phantom. (Photos: Aeroplane) F-4 PHANTOM | 63 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 63

07/01/2015 16:07

USAF technical manual illustrations, showing the internal structure of the Phantom’s airframe. (courtesy USAF)

64

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 64

05/01/2015 20:20

F-4 PHANTOM

Main fuselage and wing internal structure (forward fuselage applicable to RF-4 variant)

F-4 PHANTOM | 65 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 65

05/01/2015 20:20

66

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 66

05/01/2015 20:20

F-4 PHANTOM

F-4 PHANTOM | 67 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 67

05/01/2015 20:20

F-4E front cockpit instrument panel and side consoles

F-4E rear cockpit instrument panel and side consoles Pilot’s control column

F-4A/B pilot’s main instrument panel F-4C pilot’s instrument panel

RF-4C pilot’s instrument panel

68

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 68

05/01/2015 20:21

F-4 PHANTOM

RF-4C WSO’s instrument panel

F-4F pilot’s instrument panel

F-4F WSO’s instrument panel

F-4G pilot’s instrument panel F-4G WSO’s instrument panel

F-4G front cockpit F-4 PHANTOM | 69 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 69

05/01/2015 20:21

An unusual underside view of the F-4G, illustrating the wing leading edge slat actuator fairings, and the positions of the Phantom’s wing pylons. (Photo: USAF)

70

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 70

05/01/2015 20:21

F-4G, illustrating the leading edge slats fitted to late-production Phantoms. Also visible is the bulged wing skinning, surrounding the wider wheel and tyre assembly fitted to Phantoms from the F-4C onwards. (Photo: USAF)

The exposed sensors of the F-4D’s AN/APQ-109 radar system, as seen on an aircraft from the 170th TFS, 183rd TFG, Illinois Air National Guard. (Photo: USAF)

Luftwaffe RF-4E, with camera bays opened, illustrating the oblique camera windows (both sides of the nose) and the lower camera assembly. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) F-4 PHANTOM | 71 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 71

05/01/2015 20:22

▲ F-4E limitations data ◄ Phantom dimensions ▼ Phantom performance data

F-4A/B

Powerplants Two 10,900lb dry thrust or 17,000lb (with afterburner) General Electric J79-GE-8/8B turbojets. Internal fuel capacity 1,987 USgal. Maximum external fuel 1,341 USgal. Dimensions Wing span 38ft 5in Length 58ft 3in Height 16ft 5in Wing area 530 sq ft. Weights Loaded 44,600lb. Maximum overload 54,600lb Armament Four or six AIM-7D or AIM-7E Sparrow III AAMs or four Sparrrow and four AIM-9 Sidewinder IR AAMs. Maximum ordnance load 16,000lb on centerline and four underwing hardpoints. Performance Maximum speed Mach 2.4/1,375kt at 48,000ft or Mach 2.2/1,260kt with missiles. Maximum speed at sea level Mach 1.2/795kt. Initial climb 28,000ft/min. Low level tactical radius (6,000lb load) 250nm. Intercept radius 800nm. Unrefuelled ferry range 2,000nm.

F-4D

Powerplants Two 10,900lb dry thrust or 17,000lb (with afterburner) General Electric J79-GE-15 turbojets. Internal fuel capacity 1,890 USgal. Maximum external fuel 3,231USgal. Dimensions Wing span 38ft 5in Length 58ft 3in Height 16ft 5in Wing area 530 sq ft. Weights Empty 29,000lb. Maximum overload 59,000lb Armament Four or six AIM-7D or AIM-7E Sparrow III AAMs or four Sparrrow and four AIM-9 Sidewinder IR AAMs. Maximum ordnance load 16,000lb on centerline and

four underwing hardpoints. Up to 16,000lb external stores including Mk.83, Mk.117 and Mk.82 free fall HE bombs, AGM-12 Bullpup missiles or rocket pods. Performance Maximum speed Mach 2.25/1,290kt at 48,000ft or Mach 1.15/800kt at sea level. Initial climb rate (mid weight) 28,000ft/min. Low level tactical radius 350nm. Maximum ferry range 2,000nm at 40,000ft.

RF-4C

Powerplants Two 10,900lb dry thrust or 17,000lb (with afterburner) General Electric J79-GE-15 turbojets. Internal fuel capacity 1,890 USgal. Maximum external fuel 1,341 USgal. Dimensions Wing span 38ft 5in Length 61ft 0in Height 16ft 5in Wing area 530 sq ft. Weights Empty 29,000lb. Typical mission weight 52,823lb Armament Four or six AIM-7D or AIM-7E Sparrow III AAMs or four Sparrrow and four AIM-9 Sidewinder IR AAMs. Or four AIM-4D Falcon IR AAMs. Maximum weapons load 13,320lb Performance Maximum speed Mach 2.0/1,204kt at 40,000ft or Mach 1.15/800kt at sea level. Initial climb rate (mid weight) 44,800ft/min. Low level tactical radius 350nm. Maximum ferry range 2,000nm at 40,000ft.

F-4E

Powerplants Two 11,870lb dry thrust or 17,900lb (with afterburner) General Electric J79-GE-17A turbojets. Internal fuel capacity 1,855 USgal. Maximum external fuel 3,231USgal. Dimensions Wing span 38ft 7.5in

Length 63ft 0in Height 16ft 5in Wing area 530 sq ft. Weights Empty 31,853lb. Maximum overload 61,795lb Armament One General Electric M61A-1 20mm cannon with 640 rounds. Four Sparrow AAMs, four external pylons carrying up to 16,000lb or ordnance including conventional HE and nuclear bombs, cluster bombs, mines, ECM pods, rocket packs and AAM and ASM weapons. Performance Maximum speed Mach 2.17/1,244kt at 36,000ft or Mach 1.2/790kt at sea level. Initial climb rate (mid weight) 28,000ft/min. Low level tactical radius 570nm. Maximum ferry range 1,718nm at 40,000ft.

F-4M

Powerplants Two 12,550lb dry thrust or 20,515lb (with afterburner) Rolls-Royce RB.168-25R Spey Mk.202/3 turbofans. Internal fuel capacity 1,977 USgal. Maximum external fuel 3,318USgal. Dimensions Wing span 38ft 5in Length 57ft 11in Height 16ft 5in Wing area 530 sq ft. Weights Empty 30,000lb. Maximum overload 58,000lb Armament One 20mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon in centerline pod, four AIM-7E Sparrow AAMs or BAe Skyflash AAMs. Or four AIM-9D/L Sidewinder AAMs. External loads including HE bombs, nuclear stores, Matra rocket pods and ASMs. Performance Maximum speed Mach 21.2/790kt at 1,000ft. Mack 1.9/1,090kt at 36,000ft. Typical tactical radius 478nm. Maximum ferry range 2,172nm.

72

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 72

05/01/2015 20:22

▼ F-4B 151491 wearing the markings of VF-84 “Jolly Rogers) in 1964. The aircraft carries standard US Navy camouflage comprising of Light Gull Gray upper surfaces with white undersides, together with full colour national insignia and black serials and codes.

▼ F-4J 155833 was assigned to VF-31 during 1967, on board the USS Saratoga. VF-31 re-equipped with F-4B Phantoms in 1964, and acquired its first F-4J models in 1966. It was the only US Navy unit to have achieved aerial victories in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The F-4J featured stronger landing gear with larger wheels, requiring new gear doors and bulged fairings in the upper wing.

▼ Representing the ultimate version of the US Navy’s Phantom family, F-4S 155822 proudly wears the markings of VMFA-333, the last regular US Marine unit to operate the Phantom, re-equipping with Hornets as recently as October 1987. The F-4S was an upgraded version of the standard F-4J airframe with modified systems and sensors.

▼ F-4N was one of numerous F-4N aircraft assigned to the famous VF-111 “Sundowners” during the 1970s. The F-4N was a modified version of the early F-4B aircraft, retaining the same nose-mounted infra-red search and track detector and the same thinner wheels and tyres (and correspondingly flat wing surfaces), but with a slotted stabilator and improved systems.

▼ The F-4D (this example from the 23rd Fighter Squadron) was an improved version of the F-4C for the USAF, retaining the same airframe and engines but with new systems including a new AN/APQ-109A radar in place of the F-4C’s APQ-100 gear. The AAA-4 infra-red search and track system was replaced by a Collins ASQ-19 suite.

▼ Some 116 F-4E Phantoms were converted to F-4G Wild Weasel configuration, designed for the anti-radar and anti-missile suppression role. The nose-mounted cannon was replaced by sideways and forward-looking radar, and a variety of other systems and sensors were fitted, providing the USAF with a very effective platform. It was the last Phantom variant to remain in front-line service with the USAF,

F-4 PHANTOM | 73 †††

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 73

05/01/2015 20:22

▼ 24 F-4E Phantoms were supplied to the Royal Australian Air Force on a temporary basis, pending the delivery of F-111C bombers. Entering service in September 1970, the surviving aircraft (one having been lost in an accident) were returned to the US in 1973. All but two of the aircraft were subsequently converted to F-4G Wild Weasel standard.

▼ The Imperial Iranian Air Force was a major operator of the Phantom, acquiring F-4C, F-4E and RF-4E aircraft, many aircraft taking part in combat operations during conflicts with Iraq. The F-4C has now been withdrawn but the F-4E and RF-4E remain active, having been modified and upgraded during recent years, and both variants look set to remain in use for some years to come.

▼ Germany’s Luftwaffe operated a fleet of 88 RF-4E reconnaissance aircraft, assigned to AG-51 and AG-52. Although similar to the USAF’s RF-4C, the Luftwaffe’s aircraft incorporated upgraded systems and more powerful engines, enabling the aircraft to be operated at high and low levels in daylight or at night.

▼ The RF-4C (this example wearing the markings of the Alabama ANG) was a dedicated reconnaissance version of the Phantom designed for the USAF (the USMC also acquired reconnaissance Phantoms based on their F-4B airframes). The standard F-4C airframe was modified to incorporate a new nose section with an array of camera equipment and a (smaller) AN/APG-99 radar, together with a variety of other sensor systems that were progressively improved during the aircraft’s service life.

▼ Turkey is one of only a few nations still operating the Phantom, with 49 F-4E aircraft (as illustrated) and 15 RF-4E reconnaissance aircraft in current service. Both variants have been subject to a series of upgrade programmes and they look set to remain in service for some time.

▼ The Hellenic (Greek) Air Force continues to operate a small fleet of Phantom aircraft, with some 35 upgraded F-4E aircraft currently active (as illustrated) together with 21 RF-4E reconnaissance variants, these being former Luftwaffe machines. They are likely to be replaced by a new generation of aircraft within the next few years, the Phantom having now attained an impressive 40 years of HAF service.

74

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 74

05/01/2015 20:22

▼ A dwindling number of F-4EJ Phantoms remain in service with the JASDF, many of these being locally manufactured machines produced by Mitsubishi. The Phantom fleet was upgraded to “Kai” (improved) standard in 1995. A smaller number of RF-4E aircraft also remain active, together with 15 RF-4EJ aircraft, these being modified F-4EJ aircraft equipped to carry reconnaissance pods.

▼ The USAF’s Thunderbirds demonstration squadron operated the F-4E Phantom from 1969 until 1973, when the cost of operating the technically complex Phantom prompted the USAF to re-equip the team with T-38 Talons. Unlike the various aircraft types that previously been operated by the team, the traditional polished metal finish was replaced by gloss white paint, and this feature was continued with the T-38 and the current team aircraft, the F-16.

▼ Phantom FGR.Mk.2 XV481 was assigned to No.29 Squadron at RAF Coningsby during the late 1970s. It is pictured in what was standard RAF camouflage comprising of Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey camouflage with Light Aircraft Grey undersides, complete with low visibility national insignia and black serial numbers,

▼ Phantom FGR.Mk.2 XV424 illustrates the air defence colour scheme that was applied to the RAF’s Phantom fleet, comprising of Medium Sea Grey, Barley Grey and Light Aircraft Grey, together with “washed out” national insignia and white serials. Unit markings are those of No.56 Squadron based at Wattisham.

▼ XT597 was the last Phantom to be operated in Britain, making its last flight on 28 January 1994. Used as a trials and research aircraft, this Phantom was equipped with two interchangeable nose cones, one incorporating a Tacan system, with the other supporting a long instrumentation boom, used for airspeed calibration. Operated by the A&AEE at Boscombe Down, the aircraft was subsequently sold to Everett Aero and is now in storage at Bentwaters awaiting a buyer.

▼ Delivered to the FAA in February 1969, Phantom FG.MK.1 XV574 subsequently served with the RAF, eventually sporting this attractive colour scheme whilst serving with No.111 at Leuchars. Sadly, the aircraft was scrapped at Wattisham during 1991.

Colour Illustrations by Chris Sandham-Bailey (www.inkworm.co.uk)

Chapter FOUR 58-75 Phantom.indd 75

F-4 PHANTOM | 75

05/01/2015 20:22

On Her Majesty’s Service The United Kingdom buys America’s new warplane.

T

he origins of Britain’s association with the Phantom come from an ambitious project to design a supersonic vertical take off and landing (VTOL) fighter and attack aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy. Purchasing the P.1154 VTOL aircraft would result in an aircraft that demonstrably did not require huge aircraft carriers such as HMS Ark Royal or HMS Eagle. The Admiralty did not relish the idea of losing its mighty carriers, and if the McDonnell Phantom was purchased instead of the P.1154, the Navy would ensure that their carriers would have to remain in business. In public, the Navy slowly began to express a growing lack of confidence in the P.1154, highlighting issues such as combat effectiveness and the practicality of its PCB (Plenum Chamber Burning) engine being raised (it was feared that the engine hot exhaust would destroy the carrier’s deck surface). McDonnell sent

their new F-4B to the Paris Air Show in 1961 and as it was technically necessary to refuel en-route in the UK, it came as no surprise that the Fleet Air Arm’s main base at RNAS Yeovilton was chosen as the stop-over location. This first glimpse of the F-4 was probably the point at which the Navy’s interest in the Phantom became unstoppable, but it wasn’t until July 1964 that the Navy finally got its way, when an order for two prototype F-4K aircraft was placed, and having agreed to buy the Phantom for the Navy, the Government finally accepted that the RAF would be left to pursue the P.1154 in isolation. The standard F-4J model was adopted as the basis for a new version to be fitted with more powerful British Rolls Royce Spey turbofans, so that the aircraft was better suited to the Fleet Air Arm’s relatively small carrier decks. The Spey promised to deliver a

25 percent increase in thrust over the J-79 and this would give the aircraft a much better take-off performance whilst also reducing overall fuel consumption. It would also provide a healthy supply of bleed air for a boundary layer control system so that the aircraft would be able to fly slower approach speeds. Installing Speys into the Phantom was far from simple, and the Spey’s proportions (and their increased intake air flow) required the Phantom’s entire centre fuselage to be redesigned. The result was a fuselage that was wider and deeper, with intakes that were twenty percent larger, creating more drag and thereby negating most of the performance advantages offered by the Spey. In addition to the re-designed fuselage, another important modification was the creation of a new nosewheel gear leg assembly that had a double-extension facility, raising the aircraft’s nose to an

76

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 76

05/01/2015 20:25

F-4 Phantom

Britain’s interest in the Phantom began in 1961 when the US Navy visited RNAS Yeovilton, en-route to the Paris Air Show. This brief visit enabled the Royal Navy to examine the Phantom in detail, and gave McDonnell an opportunity to “sell” the aircraft to the Fleet Air Arm. (Photo: Aeroplane) alarmingly high angle so that the Phantom could be launched at an increased angle of attack from the smaller British carriers. Despite being an American aeroplane, the F-4K was deliberately made as British as possible, and Britain was offered a very generous 50 percent work share on the Phantom so that many components could be built under license in the UK, as well as the Rolls Royce engines. This share eventually slipped to 40 percent, and BAC Preston undertook construction the entire aft section of the aircraft, while Shorts in Belfast were assigned the manufacture of the outer wing sections. Ferranti was awarded a contract to manufacture the AN/AWG-10 radar and another 30 primary components were contracted to British companies. Defence Minister Denis Healey eventually concluded that the increasingly expensive P.1154 project could be abandoned if a suitable alternative could be found, and when Healey raised the question of whether it should be abandoned, the Air Staff accepted that the Phantom would be a good aircraft with which to replace the Hunter in the ground attack role, especially if the aircraft could also be modified into an air defence fighter at a later stage. The P.1154 was therefore cancelled in

February 1965, and an order was duly placed for a second version of the Phantom specifically for RAF requirements, on 1 July 1965. The RAF favoured a standard F-4C aircraft powered by General Electric J-79 engines. The adoption of Spey engines was regarded as unnecessary for land-based operations and there was an obvious advantage in buying an aircraft that was already proven to have good performance and good reliability. It would be cheaper, and better suited to the RAF’s needs. Not surprisingly, the Government was dismissive of the notion of buying an all-American aircraft, and the prospect of purchasing an aircraft that was almost identical to the Navy’s aircraft was too hard to resist, as it would enable an entire fleet to be powered by the same engine (thereby saving support costs) and would also reduce the amount of foreign expenditure that the Government would have to make. The RAF reluctantly agreed that even though the F-4C was preferable, they would accept the F-4M, a direct Spey-powered derivative of the F-4C, while the Navy would receive the F-4K, which was in effect a Spey-powered F-4J. The first aircraft to be completed to this standard was

YF-4K XT595 and this aircraft made its first flight from McDonnell’s factory site on 27 June 1966 in the hands of test pilot Joe Dobronski. Although most of the Phantom’s flight testing had of course already been completed by this stage, the YF-4K was a very different aeroplane when compared to the F-4J and it had to be re-tested in order that the performance of the new engine installation and the aerodynamic properties of the redesigned fuselage could be properly assessed. It soon became clear that the Spey 201 did indeed offer much better fuel consumption and a very satisfactory improvement in acceleration at low level, but at higher altitudes however, performance was not so good, being markedly inferior to the F-4J. Throttle response was found to be quite poor at altitude and the engine exhibited flame pattern fluctuations and unpredictable reheat light-up. Clearly, a significant amount of work still needed to be done and Rolls Royce’s Hucknall team worked hard to improve the Spey (eventually resulting in the MK.202) but of course there was nothing that could be done to change the fixed nature of the aircraft’s proportions, not least the complete destruction of the original F-4J’s area-ruled fuselage. Only the

F-4 PHANTOM | 77 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 77

05/01/2015 20:25

▲▼ The first F-4K was XT595, completed as a YF-4K during 1966. The aircraft’s maiden flight took place on 27 June of that year from St.Louis, and after conducting trials work in the USA, the aircraft was transferred to the MoD(PE) and assigned to further trials work in the UK. Sadly, it was eventually assigned to RAF Coningsby as a battle damage repair airframe and subsequently scrapped at St.Athan. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection) engine could be improved and the proposed service entry date slipped by some two years while the engine problems were resolved, but eventually it was accepted that even with an improved and reliable engine, the new F-4K would achieve only Mach 1.9 as an upper altitude limit, compared to the F-4J’s Mach 2.1 figure. However maximum speed was not necessarily a significant issue, and the aircraft’s top speed shortfall had to be compared with the advantages that the Spey offered at lower altitudes. The Royal Navy would be able to operate the Phantom comfortably from small British carrier decks, and even the RAF would get an aircraft that was undoubtedly superior to the F-4C at lower altitudes, and of course the RAF inevitably conducted most of its attack operations at low level. Testing of the first aircraft continued both at Edwards AFB and at Patuxent River NAS, with the first aircraft being joined by YF-4K XT596. The third aircraft (XT597) was assigned to carrier trials on board the USS Saratoga, and this aircraft became the first “British” Phantom to arrive in the UK, when it joined the A&AEE Test Squadron at Boscombe Down during 1977. Deck launches and landing trials were conducted at RAE Bedford and subsequently at sea on board HMS Eagle, one of two carriers that were scheduled to be equipped with Phantoms (the other one being HMS Ark Royal). Two Phantoms were assigned to trials on board Eagle, and some modifications to the carrier had to be made in anticipation of

their arrival. Experience on board the USS Saratoga had demonstrated that the F-4K’s immensely powerful, downwards-canted engines could cause considerable damage to the carrier deck, with buckling and holes often becoming visible after launches. HMS Eagle’s jet blast deflectors were deemed inadequate for the new task and huge steel plates were chained to Eagle’s deck behind the catapult launcher, so that the Spey’s damaging effects could be minimized. Even so, the deck had to be cooled with fire hoses after each Phantom launch. Some 143 F-4K Phantoms were initially earmarked for the Royal Navy (including prototypes) but as the cost of procurement became more evident the original order was eventually cut to 137, then down to 110, and

finally a more drastic cut to a mere 50, together with options on a further seven. The Navy’s carrier fleet also became the subject for great scrutiny, and the Government eventually concluded that with muchreduced international commitments (particularly in the Middle and Far East), the existing carrier force was unsustainable and that it could be reduced to just one operational carrier, HMS Ark Royal. The order for 50 Royal Navy aircraft was reduced still further, but this time it was re-adjusted so that 14 aircraft from that order would go directly to the RAF. These Phantoms would not be fully equipped for the ground attack role, nor the important overland nuclear strike role that also arose at this time, following the decision to cancel the purchase

YF-4M prototype XT582 made its first flight from St.Louis on 17 February 1967. It was used by the MoD(PE) as a trials aircraft until 1988 when it was withdrawn from use at Scampton and transferred to the RAE’s airfield at West Freugh. Tragically, it was placed on the airfield’s dump and abandoned. Despite numerous attempts to rescue the aircraft for preservation, the aircraft was retained by the MoD and eventually cut-up as scrap on site. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

78

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 78

05/01/2015 20:25

F-4 Phantom

A very early colour image of one of the first Phantoms to each the UK. XT862 was part of a second formation of Phantoms to reach the UK during the summer of 1968, assigned to the Fleet Air Arm. (Photo: Dick Lohuis)

No.767 Naval Air Squadron was re-established at Yeovilton on 14 January 1969, with personnel drawn from No.700P NAS. It became the Phantom Operational Conversion Unit, tasked with the training of FAA crews and the first crews destined for the RAF. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) of the F-111K. The F-4K was only suitable for the air defence role, and so it was necessary to create a land-based RAF air defence squadron that would be able to operate the F-4K, thereby beginning the Phantom’s association with the fighter-interceptor role from the very start of its service with the RAF. The Fleet Air Arm’s No.700P NAS accepted the first Phantom deliveries from June 1968 and after acceptance trials were completed, No.767 NAS became the designated Phantom training squadron from January 1969 onwards, tasked with the training of crews for both the Navy’s sole operational squadron (892 NAS) and the RAF’s No.43 Squadron (assigned to air defence). In order to complete this joint training task, a handful of aircraft assigned to the RAF were temporarily assigned to Yeovilton, and despite wearing standard RAF grey/green camouflage, they received FAA unit markings on their tails and were used as part of a “pooled” fleet of Phantoms, all assigned to training. The RAF’s No.43 Squadron formed at Leuchars, where the aircraft would be well-placed to perform long-range interception duties far out to the Eastern and Northerm extremities of the United Kingdom Air Defence Region (UKADR). Of course, Leuchars could hardly be any further from Yeovilton, and the costs and logistics of conducting training at Yeovilton was quickly regarded as illogical, when the Navy required trained crews for only one operational squadron, while the RAF would have a larger and longer-term requirement.

Prior to the formation of the RAF’s Phantom OCU, the initial training of RAF crews was undertaken by No.767 NAS based at Yeovilton. A small number of RAF Phantom FG.Mk.1 aircraft were assigned to the squadron, adorned with the unit’s markings but retaining RAF disruptive camouflage. The unit disbanded during August 1972. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

Training was therefore transferred to Leuchars in 1972 and the RAF assumed control, training crews for both the FAA and RAF as required. No.892 NAS formed on 31 March 1969 but Ark Royal’s refurbishment was not completed until February 1970, and so the unit’s initial carrier qualification training was completed on the USS Saratoga, where the USN carrier’s deck was duly subjected to repeated punishment from the engines of the four Phantoms that were deployed from the UK. The co-operation between USN and FAA crews was undoubtedly a good move that fostered good relations that continued for many years, and the FAA Phantom crews regularly joined their USN counterparts on many air defence exercises, and worked with the US Navy squadrons during the subsequent Lebanon crisis. Many exchange visits were made between USN carriers and Ark Royal until the Ark’s eventual demise, followed by the disbandment of 892 NAS on 15 December 1978. Despite the almost derisory number of aircraft at their disposal, the Royal Navy worked the Phantoms hard and they proved to be reliable and very capable, and hugely popular with the FAA crews who were lucky to fly them during their all-too brief service life with the FAA. Accidents were surprisingly few even though the aircraft were flown intensively in very demanding conditions. Operations on Ark Royal continued until 1977 when the end for the Navy’s Phantoms was in sight, however the Royal Navy didn’t propose

to say goodbye to the Phantom without due ceremony. For the much-anticipated Silver Jubilee Royal Review of the Royal Navy at Spithead, most of No.892 NAS’s Phantoms were suitably decorated with stylish red and white flashes across their radomes, and despite foul weather, the aircraft took to the skies for what was in effect their last major public appearance. On 27 November 1978 No.892 NAS retired its first aircraft to RAF St. Athan, when XT864 arrived here at the end of Ark Royal’s last cruise. On 15 December No.892 NAS disbanded, and the Royal Navy’s short but very happy association with the Phantom came to and end, although the aircraft went on to continue their operational lives with the RAF. The RAF’s first YF-4M was XT852, which made its maiden flight on 17 February 1967. McDonnell’s programme of flight testing and systems development was mostly common to both the F-4K and F-4M but additional attention had to be devoted to the RAF variant’s specialized equipment such as the Ferranti INAS and AN/AWG-12 radar. Most of this additional trials work was conducted in the UK while the aircraft was being introduced into service, and XV410 was assigned to development of the HF radio while XV106 was allocated to development of the huge and complex reconnaissance pod that was being designed by EMI, specifically for the Phantom. The first production F-4M XT891 became the first F-4M to arrive in the UK and this aircraft completed its long ferry

F-4 PHANTOM | 79 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 79

05/01/2015 20:26

flight from the United States 20 July 1968, when it touched-down at Aldergrove. On 23 August it was declared ready for service and flown to Coningsby, becoming the first aircraft for No.228 Operational Conversion Unit. The initial batch of 24 aircraft were “twin stick” aircraft with duplicated flight controls in the rear cockpit, destined for service with the OCU. However the second control column could be removed if necessary, making the aircraft identical to its standard counterparts. When the F-4M entered service, the aircraft was assigned to the ground attack role, although it was also expected to assume the overland nuclear strike role in Germany too. Additionally, two squadrons would operate the aircraft in the reconnaissance as well as the attack role and for this purpose EMI designed a sophisticated reconnaissance pod that could be carried under the Phantom’s belly. The Phantom’s reconnaissance role was particularly short-lived, largely because of the disappointing performance of the EMI pod, which failed to meet the RAF’s expectations. The RAF’s early experience of the Phantom in the air defence role (with No.43 Squadron at

Leuchars) gave the RAF great confidence for the future, when it was anticipated that the Phantom FGR.Mk.2 fleet would also be re-assigned to Air Defence operations, as the Lightning force approached its retirement date. This gradual process began late in 1974 when No.111 Squadron acquired Phantoms from No.54 Squadron, which had disbanded earlier in the year, in preparation for re-equipment with Jaguars. After refurbishment and modification these ground attack Phantoms moved north from Coningsby to Leuchars and formed the basis of a second RAF air defence Phantom unit, and this move enabled the resident No.23 Squadron to relinquish its ageing Lightnings and reform on Phantoms at Coningsby. This complicated exchange process was a welcome development, as the RAF was keen to get more Phantoms into the air defence role as swiftly as possible. No.111 Squadron’s Phantoms were FGR.Mk.2 models, but they were adapted for fighter operations with relative speed and ease. They remained with the squadron until 1980, by which stage HMS Ark Royal had been retired and the Fleet Air Arm’s Phantoms had been refurbished and

issued to No. 111 Squadron, so that both of the Leuchars units could standardise on the same Phantom variant. Both 43 and 111 Squadrons operated their FG1s as intensively as the Navy had, and so it was no surprise that by the late 1980s, some of the aircraft were beginning to show signs of fatigue and in December 1987 XV575 was found to be suffering from a series of structural faults, and this led to many of the FG.Mk.1s beingprogressively withdrawn and replaced by FGR.Mk.2s drawn from other units, but this was essentially a short-term measure to maintain capability, as the end of Phantom operations was by now in sight, and the new Tornado ADV (Air Defence Variant) had entered RAF service. No. 43 Squadron completed their last Phantom flight on 31 July 1989 and No. 111 Squadron flew its last aircraft (the all-black XV582) for the very last time on 22 September 1990. The surviving Leuchars Phantoms had by this stage made their way to Wattisham, where they were unceremoniously dumped before being reduced to a crumpled heap of scrap metal. The first ground attack Phantom FGR.Mk.2 squadron formed at Coningsby in

Phantom FG.Mk.1 XT589 appeared before the public at the 1968 SBAC Farnborough show, proudly wearing the markings of the Royal Navy’s No.700P NAS, the Fleet Air Arm’s initial trials unit for the Phantom. (Photo: Aeroplane)

80

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 80

05/01/2015 20:26

F-4 PHANTOM Lincolnshire during May 1969, with No. 6 Squadron taking crews from the first OCU course to create the first operational unit. No. 54 Squadron followed the same procedure in September and both units were duly assigned to No. 38 Group, tasked with ground attack duties in direct support of Army units as part of the UK Mobile Force. For this demanding role the Phantom was equipped to carry a variety of weapons, the main types being 1,000 lb conventional HE (High Explosive) bombs, SNEB (Societe Nouvelle des Etablissements Edgar Brandt) rocket pods and Hunting BL755 cluster bombs, together with the monstrous 20mm SUU-23/A cannon pod that was regularly carried under the aircraft’s belly. Of course, the Phantom could also carry four AIM-7 Sparrow missiles in the purpose-designed recesses under the fuselage, and the Phantom’s inherent fighter heritage endowed the aircraft with a very useful self-defence capability which could be enhanced still further by the carriage of AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles if necessary. With the OCU and operational squadrons in place at Coningsby, attention shifted to Germany, where Nos. 14, 17 and 31 Squadrons

re-formed on Phantoms, based at Bruggen. These units were assigned to ground attack duties that were similar in nature to those performed by the UK squadrons, but their main role was nuclear strike, armed with the same American tactical nuclear weapons that had been supplied under a “dual key” operational arrangement for the Canberra units. The available weapons were the B28, B43, B57 and B61 bombs, offering varying explosive yields and different delivery options, and although up to three weapons could theoretically be carried, for most projected missions a single weapon would have been attached to the centerline pylon. Buccaneers were also assigned to this strike role, but while they were allocated to longer-distance deep strike missions, the Phantoms were primarily tasked with the destruction of advancing Warsaw Pact forces within a shorter range. No. 14 Squadron stood-up in June 1970, followed by Nos. 17 and 31 Squadrons, and all three squadrons remained active in this vitally important role until the relatively brief period of Phantom operations came to and end, when new Jaguar aircraft began to reach RAF Germany

from 1974 onwards. The Phantom squadrons maintained a QRA responsibility at Bruggen and for training sorties a small 28 lb store was usually carried, which replicated the ballistics of the full-size nuclear weapon. These training sorties usually comprised of a low level flight to a weapons range, where the stores could be released either by lay-down technique or more usually by loft delivery, thrown towards the target from some distance. No.2 Squadron also re-formed on Phantoms in Germany, but unlike the other three squadrons, this unit was primarily tasked with reconnaissance, using the purpose-built centerline pod developed by EMI. With an array of four F.35 cameras, an infra-red linescan system and a flash unit, the pod gave the No.2 Squadron’s Phantoms an outstanding capability, but it suffered from many technical problems and was withdrawn from use after little more than a year, leaving the RAF with less-than satisfactory tactical reconnaissance capability for some time, until the new Jaguar (complete with its new reconnaissance pod) was introduced into service. No.41 Squadron formed at Coningsby in April 1972, assigned to the reconnaissance

F-4 PHANTOM | 81 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 81

05/01/2015 20:26

Trio of images illustrating the Phantom FG.Mk.1 launching from the deck of HMS Ark Royal. No.892 Naval Air Squadron was the only Fleet Air Arm operational squadron, forming on 31st March 1969 and remaining in business until 15th December 1978, following the end of Ark Royal’s last cruise. Although formed at Yeovilton, the unit moved to Leuchars and continued to use that airfield as home base for the rest of the unit’s existence. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection)

role and equipped with the same troublesome pod, but like their counterparts in Germany, the squadron’s reconnaissance role was relatively short-lived, and replaced by the Jaguar after only a few years. Nos. 54 and 31 Squadrons were also assigned reconnaissance as a secondary capability, although only a few of their aircraft were suitably modified to carry reconnaissance equipment. The Phantom’s service within RAF Germany was only temporary, and the arrival of the first Jaguars from 1974 would release the Phantoms from ground attack and strike operations, thereby enabling them to be shifted to the air defence role. Coningsby’s Nos. 54 and 6 Squadrons were the first to reform on Jaguars, followed by the RAFG squadrons and finally No. 41 Squadron in March 1977. The Phantom OCU’s training system then switched to air

defence operations and No. 29 Squadron reformed at Coningsby on Phantoms, in the air defence role. Nos. 23 and 56 squadrons followed, relinquishing their Lightnings and working-up on the Phantom before moving south to Wattisham. Now part of No. 11 Group, RAF Coningsby joined Leuchars and Wattisham as part of a nation-wide air defence chain, together with Binbrook, where the last Lightning squadrons remained in business. In Germany, Nos. 19 and 92 Squadrons re-formed on Phantoms at Wildenrath, both being former Lighting units that had been based at Gutersloh. Assigned to 2 ATAF, they were assigned responsibility for the defence of airspace reaching from West Germany out to the boundary of the UKADR over the North Sea. During the 1982 Falklands Conflict, No. 29 Squadron was tasked with supplying a three-aircraft detachment to Ascension

Island during April, relieving the small force of Harriers that had been temporarily assigned to the task. The three aircraft quickly assumed responsibility for air defence cover over the region, and during their stay on the islands they were scrambled on numerous occasions to investigate both surface targets and unidentified aircraft that were tracked in the area. The Phantom detachment ended on 20 July but by September the Phantoms of No.29 Squadron were again back at Ascension Island, and this time they stopped only to refuel whilst making the long journey south to the Falklands, now that the tiny landing strip at Stanley had been extended to enable Phantoms to operate from the site. Nine aircraft arrived here in October and remained at Stanley until July 1992, by which stage No.29 Squadron had given way to No.23 Squadron, and finally the

82

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 82

05/01/2015 20:27

F-4 Phantom

The Fleet Air Arm’s only front line unit was No.892 Naval Air Squadron, which reformed on Phantoms on 31 March 1969, having disposed of its Sea Vixens at Yeovilton a few weeks previously. Embarked upon HMS Ark Royal, the unit was initially home based at Yeovilton, before eventually moving to Leuchars. At the time of the squadron’s reformation it was anticipated that 892 NAS would be the Fleet Air Arm’s last operational fixed wing squadron, and as such the unit’s markings were designed to incorporate the letter Omega – the last letter in the Greek alphabet. The unit remained active with Phantoms until December 1978, the last ten Phantom launches from Ark Royal taking place on 27 November. (Photos: Tim McLelland collection)

smaller No. 1435 Flight. Operations from Stanley were challenging, as the landing strip was far from ideal for Phantom operations and weather conditions in the area were often foul, which often hampered operations quite significantly. Although the Phantoms could comfortably get airborne from the extended runway, landing was less simple and required the use of both a brake parachute and arrestor gear. Crews enjoyed the challenges of flying from Stanley, but life was certainly far from comfortable, and most of the technical and operational accommodation was housed in either portable cabins or tents, and it wasn’t until a new airfield was built from scratch (at Mount Pleasant) that conditions improved. When Tornado F3s were allocated to the Falklands detachment the Phantoms were redundant, and there was no reason to return them to the UK, therefore they were dismantled on

site, with the exception of one example that was retained as a static display. The commitments in the South Atlantic left the RAF short of fighter aircraft and the RAF looked at the possibility of either purchasing or leasing additional aircraft from the US. From a political perspective, the concept of purchasing standard F-4 models powered by J-79 engines was not a difficult issue to contemplate, as few people outside of RAF Strike Command understood the fundamental differences between the British Phantom and its American counterparts. For most purposes (and particularly for politicians) a Phantom was a Phantom. In reality, the J79-powered Phantom was effectively a completely different machine, with different performance, different equipment and different handling qualities, as well as the very different engine. But despite this, it transpired that the F-4 was the

swiftest and cheapest solution to the RAF’s needs, and after the RAF’s Vice Chief of Staff visited the USA to discuss the proposal, a batch of fifteen F-4J aircraft was purchased at a cost of £125 million, including all support for a projected service life of five years. The selected aircraft were transported out of Davis-Monthan AFB to North Island NAS in California, where they were refurbished and modified for RAF operations, effectively bringing the aircraft up to F-4S standard, although the provision for wing leading edge slats was not taken-up in order to keep costs as low as possible. Compatibility with the Sky Flash missile was deemed essential, as this missile had replaced the Sparrow on the Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2 and new zero-hour J-79-GE-10B engines were installed. The aircraft’s ejection seats were also subsequently replaced by later models, which were compatible with

F-4 PHANTOM | 83 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 83

05/01/2015 20:27

the existing RAF fleet and therefore cheaper to maintain. When all of the necessary modifications had been made, the aircraft were as good as new, even though they were all rather old airframes, some even having served in the Vietnam war. But having been refurbished they were deemed suitable for at least five years of operations, and by that stage the new Tornado F.Mk.3 was expected to be in regular RAF service, and the entire Phantom fleet would then be ready for retirement. RAF crews were trained with VMAT-101 at Yuma MCAS and the first re-built F-4J(UK) was rolled-out on 10 August 1984. By January 1985 all fifteen aircraft had made their long trans-Atlantic flights, via Goose Bay, supported by VC10 refuelling tankers. No.74 Squadron then reformed at Wattisham to operate the aircraft and within a matter of months the F-4J had become an integral part of the UK’s air defence system. Of course, the F-4J was a very different aeroplane to the F-4K and F-4M although its differences were mostly good ones, and it was only in terms of logistics that the introduction of the F-4J was regarded as anything but welcome. The F-4J’s starting system was an issue that caused significant logistical problems for some time, and some components were specific to the F-4J variant, most notably those connected to the engines, but there were other items too such

From the earliest days of their association with the Phantom, No.43 Squadron regularly intercepted Soviet aircraft that probed the edges of the UK Air Defence Region. Almost all of the interceptions were friendly, and the long flights over the North Sea helped to maintain the standards and efficiency of the Phantom squadrons. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) as the main wheels, which did not have an anti-skid system, as it obviously wasn’t necessary on a carrier. This meant that on wet runways, many landings had to be completed courtesy of an arrester barrier in order to avoid the risk of the aircraft running off the runway. Less obvious differences were somewhat smaller and less important, such as the aircrew’s flying clothing and helmets, and the instrument layout in the navigator’s

cockpit, which was completely different and challenging for crews who had become accustomed to the standard RAF variant. On the positive side, navigators in the F-4J had a much better outside view, as there were fewer pieces of equipment arranged around the cockpit, whereas the FGR.Mk.2 often appeared to have random “black boxes” seemingly stuffed into every available recess. For the pilots, the F-4J was even more of a

A magnificent line-up of 20 factory-fresh Phantom FGR.Mk.2s at RAF Coningsby, shortly after their arrival in the summer of 1968. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) 84

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 84

05/01/2015 20:28

F-4 Phantom Phantom FG.Mk.1 XT875 pictured landing at RAF Luqa, Malta, after completing an air defence exercise over the Mediterranean. (Photo: Dick Lohuis)

Pictured shortly after delivery to No.43 Squadron, four aircraft from leuchars are pictured on a local photographic sortie, passing Brunel’s Forth Road Bridge. (Photo: Aeroplane)

F-4 PHANTOM | 85 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 85

05/01/2015 20:28

treat. Despite being rather aged, the aircraft performed exceptionally well, and was capable of reaching 60,000 feet while the RAF’s FGR.Mk.2 often struggled to maintain 45,000 feet. The AWG-10B radar was also regarded highly, and even though it didn’t match the F-4M’s AGW-12 performance at very close range, it was judged to be superior. Likewise, the ageing FGR.Mk.2 and FG.Mk.1 fleet had eventually been restricted to a 3g stress limit with external stores carried, but by comparison, the refurbished F-4J was usually flown “clean” or with only a single centerline tank, enabling the aircraft

to withstand punishing 6g manoeuvres. Even though the INAS, ILS and other useful British equipment was not fitted, the F-4Js were regarded as very sporty “hot rods” by the few lucky pilots who were able to fly them during their short stay with the RAF. They remained active with No.74 Squadron until late in 1990, when it was accepted that the gradual withdrawal of FGR.Mk.2 airframes combined with a growing scarcity of spares for the F-4J made the operation of a non-standard variant unnecessary, and No.74 Squadron duly re-equipped with Phantom FGR.Mk.2 aircraft that had been

retired from other units, and their muchloved F-4Js were withdrawn, despite having many hours of flying hours left in their airframes. Their retirement was perhaps premature but it made good financial sense, even though for the pilots it was a sad loss. The surviving Phantom FG.Mk.1 and FGR.Mk.2 aircraft continued to serve in the air defence role while the new Tornado rolled off the production line and slowly made its way into regular RAF service. When the Tornado F.Mk.2 had begun to suffer seemingly endless problems with radar development, it began to look as if the

No.17 Squadron was the second RAF Phantom unit to form in Germany, and although the unit reformed at Wildenrath in July 1970, it moved to Bruggen a few weeks later and consolidated its fleet over the following months. Although capable of performing conventional attack missions, No.17 Squadron’s Phantoms were primarily assigned to the tactical nuclear strike role, equipped with American weapons. (Photo: Dick Lohuis)

86

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 86

05/01/2015 20:30

F-4 Phantom

Phantom fleet would be required to continue in service for much longer than had been envisaged, and some 75 aircraft were re-winged from 1987 onwards in order to provide them with additional airframe life, but even with these short-term modifications the Phantom’s demise was in sight and on 1st December 1986 the gradual withdrawal process began, with No.29 Squadron standing-down in preparation for re-equipment with the Tornado. The Phantom OCU moved north to Leuchars so that Coningsby could be prepared to become the RAF’s main

Tornado interceptor base, and after Coningsby had converted onto the Tornado, Nos. 43 and 111 Squadron at Leuchars then exchanged its Phantom FG.Mk.1s for Tornado F.Mk.3s and by January 1990 the Phantom FG.Mk.1 had finally been completely withdrawn from use, apart from XT579, which remained in use with the A&AEE on test flying duties. The two RAF Germany Phantom units (Nos. 19 and 92 Squadrons) disbanded late in 1991 and the last two RAF Phantom units to say goodbye to the Phantom were Nos. 56 and 74 Squadrons at Wattisham, the former

disbanding in June 1992, followed by 74 Squadron at the end of September. The A&AEE’s XT597, which had been the first British Phantom to make a carrier deck landing (during the initial trials in 1968) earned the distinction of becoming the very last active British Phantom, making its last flight on 28 January 1994, ending the Phantom’s distinguished service in the United Kingdom. Tragically, the RAF Museum, Imperial War Museum and QinetiQ (successor to the A&AEE) failed to express any interest in preserving this historic machine. v

F-4 PHANTOM | 87 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 87

05/01/2015 20:30

After a few months in service, No.6 Squadron changed its unit markings, shifting the unit’s emblem to the Phantom’s nose, while the squadron’s blue and red zigzag colours were applied in a bar across the tail fin. Visible under the fuselage is the RAf’s strike camera that was often fitted in the Sparrow missile recess, during the type’s assignment to the attack role. (Photo: Dick Lohuis)

No.54 Squadron was the second operational RAF Phantom unit, joining No.6 Squadron at Coningsby during September 1969. It operated the Phantom for a relatively short period, and transferred its Phantoms to No.111 Squadron in April 1974 when the unit received its first Jaguar attack aircraft. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

No.111 Squadron began a slow transition from Lightning interceptors onto Phantoms during 1974 and in November 1975 the unit moved from Wattisham to Leuchars, where it joined No.43 Squadron as an air defence unit, exchanging its Phantom FGR. Mk.2s for former Fleet Air Arm FG.Mk.1s. (Photo: Terry Senior) 88

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 88

05/01/2015 20:31

F-4 Phantom

No. 2 Squadron received its first Phantoms late in 1970, moving from Bruggen to Laarbruch during April 1971. Like their UK-based counterparts assigned to reconnaissance, the unit was equipped with EMI-designed reconnaissance pods, but after only a few years of operations, Jaguars began to replace the Phantoms early in 1976. The unit’s black and white markings were gradually replaced by ‘toned-down’ markings, in which the white areas were replaced by red. (Photo: Dick Lohuis) ◄ In addition to the RAF’s new strike and attack squadrons, the Phantom was also assigned to the reconnaissance role. No.41 Squadron reformed at Coningsby on 1 April 1972, and swiftly received a fleet of Phantoms equipped with reconnaissance pods designed and manufactured by EMI. Sadly the pods were less-than successful, but the unit also maintained an attack capability, for which the Phantom was well equipped. With the arrival of the Jaguar, No.41 Squadron disbanded on 31 March 1977 and reformed with Jaguars at Coltishall. (Photo: Dick Lohuis) ▼ No. 31 Squadron reformed with Phantoms at Bruggen during July 1971. Unusually, the unit was primarily assigned to the strike/attack role but operated in the reconnaissance role as a secondary capability. Some of its aircraft are believed to have been equipped to carry the EMI reconnaissance pod although the unit flew relatively few reconnaissance missions. (Photo: terry Senior)

F-4 PHANTOM | 89 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 89

05/01/2015 20:31

No.228 OCU was the RAF’s Phantom Operational Conversion Unit, responsible for the training of all Phantom crews. Based at Coningsby, the first Phantoms were received late in 1968 and in 1970 the unit was given the ‘shadow’ identity of No.64 Squadron. In April 1987 the OCU moved to Leuchars when Phantom operations ended at Coningsby, and remained active until 31st January 1991 by which stage Phantom crew training had ended. Like other RAF Phantom units, the OCU’s Phantoms were progressively repainted in air defence grey colours and almost all of the unit’s aircraft were modified to carry RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) gear in a rectangular fairing on top of the tail fin. However a few aircraft were not modified, despite being repainted. (Photo: Terry Senior)

As a Lightning unit, No.23 Squadron reformed on Phantoms at Coningsby late in 1974 before moving to Wattisham a few weeks later. The squadron assumed air defence responsibilities from No. 29 Squadron on 1st April 1983 and operated from Port Stanley until the new RAF Mount Pleasant was completed. When the unit moved to Mount Pleasant the Phantom detachment was reduced to four aircraft. Back in the UK, No.23 Squadron continued flying Phantoms from Wattisham until November 1988 when the unit converted onto Tornado F3s and moved to Leeming. (Photo: Terry Senior)

No 29 reformed at Coningsby as a Phantom squadron on 1st January 1975. A detachment (with nine aircraft) was provided for the defence of the Falklands as soon as the airfield at Stanley was capable of operating Phantoms at the end of August 1982. This became No 23 Squadron Detachment in March 1983. After the Falklands air defence commitment was handed to No.23 Squadron, No.29 Squadron continued to operate as a UK-based air defence unit at Coningsby, apart from an eight-month deployment to Waddington while Coningsby was modified. On their return, 29 Squadron became the first UK air defence unit to operate from a Hardened Aircraft Shelter complex. The Squadron swapped its Phantoms for Tornado F3 fighters in 1987. (Photo: Terry Senior) 90

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 90

05/01/2015 20:33

F-4 Phantom

No.19 Squadron was one of two RAF units that were assigned to air defence duties in Germany. After converting from Lightnings in 1976 the unit moved from Gutersloh to Wilderath and became operational during 1977, remaining active until January 1992, when the Phantom was withdrawn from Germany. 19 Squadron’s Phantoms operated from a HAS (Hardened Aircraft Shelter) complex at Wildenrath, and (as illustrated) the squadron also deployed to both Akrotiri and Decimomannu for air combat training. (Photo: Dick Lohuis)

No.92 Squadron was the second of two RAF Phantom air defence squadrons based in Germany. Like No.19 Squadron, the unit converted from Lightings at Gutersloh onto Phantoms at Wildenrath, and moved into a purpose-built Hardened Aircraft Shelter complex. The unit operated in Germany until the end of 1990. At midnight on 2/3 October of that year, two Phantoms from 19 and 92 Squadron flew a symbolic mission to mark the handover of responsibility of German air defence to the Luftwaffe, and both units also applied a striking all-blue paint scheme to one of their aircraft shortly before the type was withdrawn. No.92 Squadron disbanded as a Phantom unit on 5th July 1991. (Photo: Terry Senior) F-4 PHANTOM | 91 †††

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 91

05/01/2015 20:33

No.56 Squadron repainted two Phantoms (XV424 and XV486) during 1979 in eye-catching colours, as part of a celebration of Alcock and Brown’s crossing of the Atlantic some sixty years previously. With XV486 as a reserve aircraft. XV424 flew a commemorative crossing of the Atlantic on 21st July. Following retirement, the aircraft was placed in the RAF Museum at Hendon and remains on display there to this day. (Photo: RAF)

The very last British Phantom to remain active was XT597, one of the first Phantoms to begin flying back in the 1960s when it was one of the early developmental fleet. It never served with an operational squadron, and was assigned to test duties with the A&AEE (Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment) based at Boscombe Down. Although painted in a naval-style dark grey and white paint scheme, XT597 was soon decorated with a red tail and wing tips, denoting its use as a test aircraft. Unusually, it could be fitted with one of two radomes, once modified to carry Tacan (Tactical Air Navigation) equipment, and the other fitted with a long instrumentation boom, which was often used when the aircraft acted as a speed calibration and ‘chase’ aircraft for other machines. The aircraft rarely carried any external equipment although it was used to fly trials with an early version of the reconnaissance pod that was developed for the RAF Phantom fleet. It was eventually repainted in red, white and blue colours and finally received the A&AEE’s ‘A Squadron’ motif on its tail before making the very last Spey-powered Phantom flight on 28th January 1994. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

Phantom XV408 was one of two aircraft painted in overall blue colours to mark the disbandment of Nos. 19 and 92 Squadrons in Germany during 1991. (Photo: Stuart Lewis) 92

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 92

05/01/2015 20:33

F-4 Phantom

The Falklands conflict led directly to the re-birth of No.74 Squadron. Immediately after the conflict it became clear that there was a need for a full-time fighter squadron to undertake air defence of the islands. No. 23 Squadron was tasked this duty, but this left a big gap in the defence of the UK, and so it was decided to form an additional fighter squadron. After examining various possibilities, a fleet of former US Navy F-4J Phantoms was purchased for £33m as these were the closest equivalent to the F-4K/M British-built versions currently in RAF service, and No.74 Squadron was chosen as the unit to reform. The first three aircraft arrived at Wattisham on 30th August 1984 after a transatlantic crossing from Goose Bay. Rundown of the Phantom fleet in the early 1990s provided a surplus of FGR2 airframes, and as a cost saving measure the Phantom fleet was rationalized and the F-4Js were retired early 1991 in favour of the Phantom FGR.Mk.2. Retirement for the entire Phantom fleet followed in October 1992, and No.74 Squadron was the last to operate the type, (Photos: Terry Senior & Tim McLelland collection)

F-4 PHANTOM | 93

Chapter FIVE 76-93 Phantom.indd 93

05/01/2015 20:33

International Acclaim

The F-4 Phantom in service around the world

94

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 94

05/01/2015 20:36

F-4 Phantom

Australia Australia’s first links with the Phantom can be traced back to the 1960s when McDonnell first offered the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) a version of the F-4C (Model 98DX) powered by a pair of French-built SNECMA Atar 9 turbojets. This engine was selected because it powered the Dassault Mirage IIIO fighters that were already being flown by the RAAF. The RAAF eventually opted to purchase the General Dynamics F-111C, but development of the F-111 variable-geometry strike fighter turned out to be much more difficult than anticipated, and the programme suffered from numerous problems that required expensive fixes, producing seemingly endless delays. The various issues affecting USAF F-111As resulted in a long-term postponement in the deliveries of the F-111Cs to Australia and in May 1970, it was announced that deliveries of F-111Cs to the RAAF could not be expected until 1974. The long delay left the RAAF with no replacement for its fleet of elderly Canberra B.20 bombers, and in order to fill a gap in capability until the F-111Cs could be delivered to Australia, the USAF agreed to loan 24 factory-fresh F-4Es to the RAAF. The programme was named Peace Reef, and the

contract was signed on June 22, 1970. The fleet of 24 F-4Es arrived in Australia during September and October of 1970. They were allocated to Nos. 1 and 6 Squadrons at Amberley, replacing the Canberra bombers that had previously been assigned to these squadrons. The RAAF F-4Es were assigned an out-of-sequence serial prefix ‘A69’ (previously assigned for the a cancelled order for Curtiss A-25 Shrikes during the Second World War), chosen so that it matched the Fiscal Year of the USAF serial numbers. However, the original USAF serials remained painted on the aircraft. The RAAF crews quickly grew to appreciate the capabilities of their new F-4Es, and Australia eventually considered cancelling its order for F-111Cs in favour of more Phantoms, but the need for adequate

range would have required the additional purchase of KC-135 tanker planes to support its Phantoms, and this made the concept too expensive to seriously contemplate. When the F-111Cs finally did become available, the RAAF crews reluctantly gave up their F-4Es and in anticipation of the delivery of the F-111Cs, six RAAF F-4Es were returned to the USA during October 1972. The F-111Cs finally began to arrive in Australia in June 1973, and the last RAAF F-4Es had been returned to the USA by June 21st 1973. During RAAF service only one F-4E (69-7203) was lost, on June 16th 1971 during a night bombing exercise. Of the 23 surviving RAAF F-4Es returned to the USAF, 21 were later converted to F-4G Wild Weasel SAM suppression aircraft, mostly for service with the 35th TFW.

F-4 PHANTOM | 95 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 95

05/01/2015 20:36

(Photos: Ray Ball collection)

Israel Israel earned the distinction of becoming the largest export customer for the F-4 Phantom. Ultimately, some 240 F-4Es and RF-4Es were supplied to the Israel Defense Force between 1969 and 1976, providing the country with its most potent combat aircraft throughout the 1970s. Although the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F-15 Eagle eventually replaced the Phantom in IDF service, the F-4 remained in active service for more than three decades. The F-4E was known colloquially as Kurnass (translated as Heavy Hammer) in IDF service, while the RF-4E and F-4E(S) were named Oref (Raven). Israel first expressed interest in the Phantom as far back as 1965, but their approaches didn’t meet with much enthusiasm from the US Government. However, losses during the Six-Day War of 1967, the imposition of an arms embargo on Israel by France, and the flow of Soviet-bloc weapons to Israel’s enemies eventually

persuaded the US State Department to change its mind. On January 7th 1968, President Lyndon Johnson gave his approval to the sale of Phantoms to Israel and the delivery of Phantoms to Israel became an issue during the US Presidential campaign of 1968. Following the election, the departing President Johnson confirmed the sale of 44 F-4Es and six RF-4Es to Israel under Peace Echo I. Crew training began in March 1969, and the first F-4Es were delivered to Israel in September 1969. The first IDF/AF Phantoms were officially accepted on September 5th 1969 in a formal ceremony presided over by Prime Minister Golda Meier and Minister of Defence Moshe Dayan. The undeclared 1969-71 «War of Attrition» between Egypt and Israel saw the Phantoms engaged in their first action. On October 22nd 1969, IDF/ AF Phantoms began attacks against Egyptian SAM sites located west of the Suez Canal, and an Israeli F-4E claimed its first kill on

November 11, this being an Egyptian MiG-21. The build-up of Israel’s Phantom force continued with the arrival of another 24 former USAF F-4Es and 28 new-build F-4Es, all delivered to Israel between April 1972 and October 1973 under Operation Peace Echo IV. This brought Israel’s fleet to 122 F-4Es and 6 RF-4Es. When the Yom Kippur War began, more than 100 Phantoms were in service with the IDF although by that time, Israel had lost at least eight Phantoms in various battles with Egyptian and Syrian forces, two of them having been downed by MiG-21s. In exchange, Israeli Phantoms had destroyed 11 enemy aircraft. Following the conclusion of the Yom Kippur War, another batch of 24 former USAF and 24 new-build F-4Es were transferred to Israel, together with two batches of six RF-4E reconnaissance aircraft, under Operation Peace Echo V. The last Phantom was delivered to Israel in

96

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 96

05/01/2015 20:36

F-4 Phantom

November of 1976. Even though the war han ended, IDF Phantoms were still in constant use against guerilla targets in Lebanon and on 9th June 1982 the Israeli incursion into Lebanon began with an attack on the Syrian air defence network in the Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Phantoms armed with Mavericks, Shrikes, and Standards attacked Syrian SAM sites while F-15s and F-16s flew top cover. After the conflict ended, Phantoms continued to carry out attacks on guerilla targets in Lebanon and some losses were incurred. Iraq claimed to have shot down an IDF RF-4E while it was photographing their ballistic missile research centre near Mosul in 1986 but this has never been confirmed by Israel. Israel’s F-4Es received various modifications whilst in service, including the fitting of a non-retractable bolt-on refuelling probe, linked to the dorsal fuel receptacle. Shafrir and Python air-to-air missiles, and

Gabriel air-to-surface missiles were made compatible with the aircraft, and the 20mm M61A1 rotary cannon was replaced by a pair of 30-mm DEFA cannon. The IDF F-4Es could also carry Luz 1 television-guided air-tosurface missiles, AGM-84A Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Hobos television guided bombs, the AGM-45 Shrike anti-radar missiles, AGM-62 Walleye and AGM-65 Maverick missiles. Israel considered an ambitious upgrade program, in which the J79 turbojets would have been replaced by PW1120 turbofans. Canard fore planes would have been fitted, and new electronic systems and equipment would also have been installed. However, cost considerations resulted in a much more modest program, termed Kurnass 2000. IDF Phantoms subjected to this upgrade were fitted with a new Kaiser wide-angle heads-up display, a mission computer, a display computer controlling new multifunction displays, a

heads-up display video camera, new radios, and major improvements to the electronics. Parts of the aircraft’s structure were strengthened and steps to improve fuel leaks were introduced. Bolt-on refuelling probes were fitted and a small strake was fixed above the air intake to improve combat manoeuvrability. The first converted example was formally accepted by the IDF on August 11th 1987 and the upgraded Phantom was first used in action in February 1991, when a number of aircraft used laser-guided bombs against a target in Lebanon. Some 116 air-to-air victories were claimed by Israel’s Phantoms between the beginning of the War of Attrition in 1969 and the Bekka Valley battles of 1982. Israel admitted to the loss of at least 55 Phantoms in combat, most of these to SAMs and AAA. Israel’s Phantoms have now been retired, their roles having been assumed by F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

F-4 PHANTOM | 97 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 97

05/01/2015 20:36

(Photos: Tim McLelland collection)

Egypt The 1978 Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel brokered by President Jimmy Carter brought an end to a long saga of military confrontation between these two nations. Before the agreement, the Al Quwwat al Jawwiya il Misriya (Arab Republic of Egypt Air Force) had relied on the Soviet Union for its military equipment and survived with financial aid from neighbouring Arab countries. However, Egypt’s Arab backers were unimpressed with the Camp David agreement (referring to it as a ‘sellout’) and in July 1979 they withdrew all financial support for Egypt. Saudi Arabia abruptly cancelled its agreement to purchase a batch of 50 Northrop F-5Es, all of which were to have been given to Egypt. As a substitute for this American-inspired problem, the State Department agreed to supply Egypt with 35 former USAF F-4E Phantoms. In exchange, Egypt agreed to give some of their MiG-21s and MiG-23s to the USAF, thereby enabling

the US Air Force to evaluate the aircraft first-hand. The project was given the name Peace Pharaoh, and the first deliveries of F-4Es to Egypt took place in September 1979. The first of these F-4Es were taken from the 31st TFW based at Homestead AFB. After delivery, they were operated by No.76 and No.88 Squadrons, both part of the 222nd Fighter Regiment. The Egyptian pilots were accustomed to the far simpler MiG-21, and found the Phantom a demanding aircraft by comparison. In particular, Egyptian ground maintenance crews found that the Phantom was a much more complex aircraft than those that they were previously familiar with, and was much more difficult to service and maintain. Serviceability and availability rates were therefore quite low for several years and during one period during the early 1980s the Egyptian air force found it impossible to even maintain a dozen serviceable Phantoms. By 1982, Egypt was so frustrated with its Phantom operations that they considered

selling their planes to Turkey in exchange for a fleet of F-16s. However, new training programs were put in place in collaboration with the USAF, and the situation slowly improved. By 1985, the serviceability condition had improved considerably, and Egypt ultimately decided to retain its Phantoms. In 1988, seven more former USAF Phantoms were provided to Egypt but following this transfer here were no further Phantom deliveries, as the Egyptian Air Force opted to acquire large numbers of F-16 Fighting Falcons as its future primary fighter aircraft. At least three Phantoms crashed during the type’s service in Egypt, all of which were replaced by three more aircraft (67-0328, 67-0332, and 67-0366). The surviving F-4Es currently equip two squadrons of the 222nd Fighter Regiment based at Cairo West. Structural upgrades have been made, but it seems unlikely that any further significant improvements will be implemented.

98

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 98

05/01/2015 20:37

F-4 PHANTOM

F-4 PHANTOM | 99 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 99

05/01/2015 20:37

(Photos: Andre Jens & Tim McLelland collection)

Germany Germany’s interest in what eventually became the F-4F evolved from a change in Nato doctrine that occurred back in 1967. Nato’s decision to shift from an almost completely nuclear stance towards a more flexible response highlighted the need for a new and better fighter. The F-104G Starfighter was the standard fighter operated by the Luftwaffe at that time, and the Luftwaffe concluded that this aircraft was not capable of meeting all of the increased demands that the new Nato policy implied. Germany examined the projected capability of future fighter designs and new requirements were identified and outlined in the tender for a new Luftwaffe fighter; Firstly, there was a need for rapid availability as the aircraft ideally needed to be ready for service in 1974. The new aircraft also had to be a proven design so that technical and financial risks would be minimal. It would also have to be fully compatible with aircraft and systems employed by other Nato forces. Good manoeuvrability was also stipulated and it was envisaged that the aircraft should be capable of performing better than the MiG-21 at medium and lower altitudes, and an all weather navigation capability would be necessary. The high loss rate that the Luftwaffe had experienced with the Starfighter also influenced the preference for a twin-engine design, if it was possible. Various aircraft types were duly examined in some detail, including the Saab Viggen, the Jaguar, Northrop’s F-5 and the Mirage F1, but the Phantom emerged as the most suitable by quite some margin. Initially, McDonnell proposed a single-seat derivative of the F-4E (with the rear cockpit effectively faired-over to provide space for avionics and additional fuel) but even though the concept was appealing, the costs of re-designing the aircraft were too high for an already-sensitive German government, and as the RF-4E Phantom had already been adopted for reconnaissance operations, it seemed logical to pursue a Phantom variant that shared as much commonality with the RF-4E as possible, therefore on 24th June 1971 the Bundestag (German parliament) agreed a purchase of 175 F-4F Phantom II aircraft for a unit price of 12 Million DM. McDonnell

agreed to a series of work-share arrangements that enabled German industry to be heavily involved in building the F-4F and many components were duly manufactured in Germany. The rear fuselage, the outer wing, rudders and other components were built by Messerschmitt Bolkow-Blohm (MBB), producing more than 500 component “kits” that enabled around 10 percent of the F-4F to be directly attributable to German manufacture, indeed, only the first F-4F was built without any German components. The engines of the German F-4Fs were also built in Germany, with MTU manufacturing 448 examples of the J79-GE/ MTU-17A engine, the company having already built more than 1,250 J79-GE-11A engines for the F-104G. Ultimately, some 60 percent of the F-4F’s engine was manufactured by General Electric, while the other 40 percent (and the final assembly) was undertaken by MTU in Germany. The modifications that were necessary to change the J79-GE-17A engine into the smokeless J79-GE-17B or E variants were never introduced by Germany, largely because of the costs that would have been incurred. The first F-4F completed its maiden flight on 18th March 1973, while the official roll-out of the type was somewhat later on the 24th May 1973. The first twelve examples of the F-4F were sent directly to the 35 TFW at George AFB California to be used for pilot training.

 The first F-4F to reach Germany was 37+04, and the last F-4F from Germany’s order (named “Spirit of Cooperation”) was delivered to the Luftwaffe on 1st October 1976. Although the Luftwaffe’s F-4F Phantoms are ostensibly derivatives of the F-4E, they incorporated some significant changes. The seventh fuel cell was not installed in favour of an APU for hydraulic pressure to systems PC1 and PC2, non-slatted stabilators were used and wing leading edge slats (added to many F-4E aircraft) were fitted as standard to give the F-4F good manoeuvring capability. The APQ-120 V5 radar was a simplified version of the existing system, unable to support the AIM-7 sparrow missile, and the wiring for the AIM-7 was not even installed. The range of the APQ-120 V5 was reported to be of around 100 km, but it offered no useful look-down/shoot-down capability and the ability to engage multiple targets was also not incorporated. The radar did however, offer useable navigation and ground attack modes, although air to ground weapons were limited to dumb bombs and unguided rockets. The Radar Warning Receiver installation was the AN/ALR-46 type, able to detect pulsed signals only. A cockpit display combined with sound signals alerted the crew to any danger, while an AN/ALQ 101 ECM pod was regularly carried in front left (redundant) Sparrow bay. Without the Sparrow, the F-4F’s capability was

100

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 100

05/01/2015 20:37

F-4 PHANTOM

undoubtedly limited, with only the AIM-9B Sidewinder and the M-61A1 gun available for use in combat, and so the F-4F was only capable of rear attacks from close range, thereby requiring the Luftwaffe crews to operate exclusively in the non-BVR (Beyond Visual Range) close-range role. During 1975 a plan for an update of the fleet was devised, intending to improve the Phantom’s conventional weapons capability. The core of the update was the installation of a digital and programmable weapons computer (LRU1). To make it compatible with the aircraft’s analogue flight data sensors, a Signal Conditoner Converter Unit (SCCU) was also added. A radar beacon for the APQ-120 radar was added, to enable bombs to be dropped through cloud cover, and a Digital Scan Converter Group was installed to provide radar and optical pictures on the radar scope. Computerised Automatic Acquisition improved the aircraft’s air-to-air combat capability, and the Aero 3B launch rails were replaced by new LAU-7A/5 (FRG) rails to accept AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles. The cockpit weapons delivery panel was upgraded to introduce the AIM-65 B Maverick, and a hand control unit for the weapon was also installed, while the inner wing pylon was modified to accommodate LAU-118 (one-round) launch rails for the AGM-65. The AN/ALR 46 RWR gear was replaced by AN/ALR 68, developed by Litton for the Luftwaffe, and two AN/ALE 40 chaff and flare dispensers were added to the wing inner pylons. The original Royal Jet 600 gallon centre line fuel tank was replaced by the HPC tank, used by the USAF’s F-15 squadrons, and the AN/ALQ 101 ECM pod was supplemented by the AN/ALQ 119 ECM

pods (and many AN/ALQ 101 were retrofitted to AN/ALQ 119 standard). Following this update the F-4F was well equipped for the air to ground role, but still lacked improved air-to-air capabilities. The “Peace Rhine” program did not include provisions for the AIM-7 Sparrow, so the F-4F was still limited to visual air combat. With the new generation of MiG-fighter planes being fielded by the Warsaw Pact air forces, it became obvious that something had to be done in order to improve the Luftwaffe’s air fighting capability, and the ultimate solution was to order what eventually became the Eurofighter Typhoon. However, until the Typhoon could be developed and manufactured, the faithful F-4F was subjected another improvement program, as it became increasingly obvious that the F-4F would have to remain in service beyond the year 2000. The SLEP (Service Life Extension Programme) and associated avionics update was outlined in 1983, specifying long range engagement capability, Look-Down/ Shoot-Down capability, Multiple targets engagement capability, Track-While-Scan capability, and the use of radar guided AAMs even under enemy jamming conditions. The new requirements for the ground attack role were not as ambitious and covered improved navigation, the use of guided munitions and stand-off weapons, and a better all-weather capability. The resulting “Kampfwertsteigerung” (KWS) – better known as “ICE” (Improved Combat Efficiency) programme consisted of three steps. The first step was the basic SLEP and all 156 remaining F-4Fs were to go through this program, which included overhauling the airframes to increase the structural life by an

additional 6,000 flight hours, while giving potential for up to 10,000 additional more hours if this was subsequently thought necessary. Extension of Planned Depot Maintenance (PDM) intervals was improved from 54 to 72 months, reducing lifecycle costs, and preventive inspection and repairs were now to be adopted at an early stage. The aircraft fuselage was divided into structural problem zones and areas with proven structural fatigue were remanufactured. A basic avionics update was also given to the whole fleet, which incorporated a new Honeywell Laser Inertial Navigation System and a GEC Marconi digital air data computer (CPU-143/A). Only 43 F-4Fs went through stages 1 and 2 of the upgrade and were duly designated as LA (“Luftangriff ”) Ground Attack variants, easily distinguished from the full ICE variant by their black radomes, under which the old APQ-120 radar was still retained. Stage 2 of the ICE update was given to the remaining 113 F4-Fs, the core of this update being the AN/APG-65Y radar and the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. Integration of the AN/ APG-65 and the AIM-120 AMRAAM was undertaken at Point Mugu NAS during 1991 and1992. Three former US Navy F-4N Phantoms were bought by the Luftwaffe and used as QF-4N unmanned drones for the missile trails, all three surviving the tests before being sold back to the US Navy. Further minor upgrades were also being introduced until the type’s final retirement in 2013. Germany also acquired a fleet of RF-4E reconnaissance Phantoms but unlike the F-4F, these were in effect “standard” aircraft that were not developed in any major way for operations with the Luftwaffe.

F-4 PHANTOM |101 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 101

05/01/2015 20:37

(Photos: HAF)

Greece Greece is one of only a few countries where the Phantom remains very much in service. Having been supplied with F-4Es and RF-4Es newly manufactured by McDonnell, as well as receiving Phantoms transferred to it from the USAF and the German Luftwaffe, a total of 121 Phantoms was eventually delivered to the EPA. An initial contract codenamed Peace Icarus was placed in 1971 for 36 F-4Es. These were delivered to Greece from March 1974 onwards. Two attrition replacements were delivered in June 1976 and follow-on contracts were issued for 18 F-4Es and 8 RF-4Es. The RF-4Es were delivered to Greece between June 1978 and April 1979, while the follow-on F-4Es were delivered between May and December 1978. The F-4Es entered service in April 1974 with 339 ‘Ajax’ Mira (Squadron) based at Andravida, a unit tasked as an all-weather interception role, and Operational Conversion Unit for the Phantom. 338 ‘Ares’ Mira (also based at Andravida) began to convert onto Phantoms in 1975, assigned the ground attack role. In 1978, the follow-on order for more F-4Es and RF-4Es enabled 337 ‘Fantasma’ Mira to re-equip with Phantoms. The 337 Mira had previously flown Northrop F-5As as part of 111 Wing at Nea Ankhialos, and moved to Larissa to receive the F-4Es. The RF-4Es were issued to 348 ‘Matia’ Mira based at Larissa, replacing the aged RF-84F in the reconnaissance role. However, the unit retained its RF-84Fs in the training role until 1990. In 1993, 29 former Luftwaffe RF-4Es were added to the strength of 348 Mira. Arrangements for the United States to supply 40 surplus F-4Es to Greece, was established in 1987. This was later amended to involve 50 F-4Es and 19 F-4G Wild Weasels, and in exchange, the Greek government agreed in July 1990 to an eight-year extension of the US bases agreement. The first stage of the agreement resulted in the delivery of 28 F-4Es to Greece, drawn from the Indiana Air

National Guard›s 113th TFS and 163rd TFS. These were delivered to Greece in late 1991, entering service with 338 Mira. Although the F-4G deliveries never happened, some of the EPA’s older F-4Es were modified in a manner similar to that of the USAF’s F-4G Wild Weasel aircraft, and Texas Instruments AGM-88A HARM missiles were been supplied for these aircraft. Various upgrades have been carried out of EPA’s F-4 fleet. In 1993, the EPA issued a request for proposals for upgrading and replacement of the original APQ-120 fire-control radar to make the EPA Phantom AMRAAM-capable. DASA, Rockwell, and IAI all submitted bids. However, IAI had to be ruled out on political considerations because it was also involved in upgrading Turkey’s Phantom fleet. DASA was awarded the contract in August 1997 under a contract known as Peace Icarus 2000. The DASA proposal was quite similar to the Luftwaffe F-4F ICE upgrade with APG-65 radar, plus an additional GEC-Marconi HUD and GPS/INS. The first upgraded aircraft flew for the first

time on April 28, 1999 at DASA’s Manching facility. The remaining 37 aircraft were upgraded by Hellenic Aerospace Industry, using DASA-supplied kits. The upgraded EPA Phantom was provided with Rafael LITENING sensor pods for targeting and navigation of close-support weapons such as precisionguided bombs and Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick missiles. Although the F-4E and RF-4E fleet is now showing signs of its age, it is unlikely that Greece’s Phantoms will be replaced any time soon. The country’s dire financial state has resulted in a need for drastic cost savings, and it seems certain that no replacement aircraft for the Phantoms will emerge for some time, and that the aged Phantoms will continue to fly, albeit on a reduced scale. Now that Greece has a fleet of F-16s with reconnaissance capability, the remaining RF-4 Phantoms may well be the first to be retired or merged into one “super squadron” designed to embrace all of Greece’s Phantom operations. This is likely to be either 338 0r 339 Mira at Andravida Air Base.

102

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 102

05/01/2015 20:38

F-4 Phantom

F-4 PHANTOM |103 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 103

05/01/2015 20:38

(Photos: Babak Taghvaee)

Iran Like Israel, Iran’s Phantom operations have largely been conducted far away from public scrutiny, even though Iran was only second to Israel in terms of Phantom export orders. A total of 32 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es, and 16 RF-4Es (plus eight F-4Es borrowed from the USAF and subsequently returned) was supplied to Iran before the fall of the Shah, and the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist regime. After the shift in political power, an arms embargo was placed on the country and no further aircraft were delivered. The Shah of Iran had ambitious plans to make Iran into a major military power in the Persian Gulf region and the United States Government actively supported the Shah’s ambitions, hoping that his government would be effective counter to any Soviet expansionist intentions in the area. As part of this expansion of Iranian military power, the Nirou Havai Shahanshahiye Iran (Imperial Iranian Air Force) placed an order for 16 F-4Ds in 1967 followed by a follow-up order for a second batch of another 16 F-4Ds. The first batch of F-4Ds arrived in Iran on September 8th 1968, and a total of 32 F-4Ds ultimately made their

way to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. Iranian F-4Ds were used in several unsuccessful attempts to intercept Soviet MiG-25s that were allegedly spying on Iran, but the country’s first full-scale combat use of the F-4D was in 1975 when Iran provided military assistance to the Sultan of Oman in action against rebels. One of Iran’s F-4Ds was lost to ground fire during these operations. In further pursuit of the Shah’s ambitious goals, the government of Iran ordered a fleet of 208 F-4Es from McDonnell during the early and mid-1970s. The first examples were delivered in March 1971 and a total of 177 F-4Es was delivered to the Imperial Iranian Air Force between 1971 and 1979. However, growing unrest in Iran forced the Shah to flee his country and go into exile, and by 1979 a fanatical Islamic fundamentalist revolution took over the government. The new Islamic Republic of Iran immediately began to assume a very clear anti-Western stance, and on February 28th 1979, the US Government placed an embargo on further arms deliveries to Iran. The remaining 31 F-4Es on the contract were therefore cancelled and never delivered.

Iran was the second-largest largest customer (after Germany’s Luftwaffe) for the RF-4E, a reconnaissance version of the F-4E built for export. A batch of 27 examples was ordered by Iran and the first RF-4E destined for Iran rolled off the production line at St Louis late in 1970. The first RF-4Es arrived in Iran in 1971 and fifteen more RF-4Es were delivered in succeeding years. However, the final 11 RF-4Es destined for Iran were cancelled in February of 1979 after the arms embargo came into place. By the time that the Shah was forced to flee, Iran had 188 operational Phantoms in service, which represented a very significant and useful force. However the arms embargo against Iran imposed by the West caused a severe spare parts and maintenance problem. The Phantom units were often poorly trained and could not operate without Western contractor support. The political upheavals caused by the fundamentalist revolution made the situation much worse, and many pilots and maintenance personnel followed the Shah into exile. As a result, the Islamic Republic Iranian Air Force (IRIAF) was soon only a mere shadow of its former self, and

104

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 104

05/01/2015 20:38

F-4 PHANTOM

when Iraq attacked Iran in September of 1980, only a meagre 40 percent of the Iranian Phantom fleet was declared operational. Iran was only able to keep its F-4s flying by scavenging for spare parts and replacements from whatever sources it could. Israel is alleged to have secretly delivered Phantom spare parts to Iran, perhaps on the basis that an active F-4 force would help to keep Iraq’s attention off Israel. There were reports that Israel supplied critical spare parts for the Phantom’s APQ-120 radar, which made it possible to fire the Sparrow semi-active radar-homing missile. Iran was also able to purchase some arms supplies, either legally or illegally. In August 1984, an Iranian F-4 pilot defected with his aircraft to Saudi Arabia, and upon investigation his aircraft was found to have components that had come from Israel and several Nato countries, suggesting that the arms embargo wasn’t as big an issue as it once had been. It is certainly true that the United States government generally favoured Iraq during the initial stages of the war, and even supplied some military

intelligence to that country. However, in an attempt to win the freedom of hostages held by pro-Iranian guerillas in Lebanon, the United States began a clandestine shipment of arms to Iran in 1985. Most of these arms consisted of TOW and Hawk missiles, but there are reports that spare parts for the Phantom’s APQ-120 radar were also delivered. Israel was an important intermediary in these arms deliveries. The story finally leaked into the media in November 1986. It was later revealed that the money obtained in payment from Iran had been diverted to pay for arms supplied to the Contras in Nicaragua, in direct contravention of Congressional prohibition of such deliveries. The revelation of this arms deal in the media was a major source of embarrassment to the Reagan administration and caused a constitutional crisis. There is also a report that 23 former USAF F-4Es may have been transferred to Iran in the mid 1980s via Paraguay, but there seems to be little evidence to support this claim. Although Phantom availability and serviceability remained low throughout the remainder of the Iran-Iraq war, even in

January of 1988, the IRIAF was still able to fly Phantom missions, and mounted rocket attacks during the tanker war in the Gulf. When the war ended in 1988, the IRIAF had less than a dozen Phantoms that were still in flyable condition. Estimates of the number of Phantoms that are currently operational with the IRIAF vary widely. Somewhere between 70 and 75 Phantoms are believed to be currently flying in Iran, and although the main IRIAF Phantoms fleet now comprises of the F-4E version and a small-number of RF-4Es, the F-4D is also being modified for continued service. IRIAF Phantoms have been subject to local upgrades, the APQ-120 radar of the F-4E and the APQ-109 radar of the F-4D having been significantly improved in both the tracking and search modes, and the IRIAF F-4E now has a limited look down – shoot down capability. The F-4 fleet (including the remaining F-4D airframes) are progressively being upgraded with new cockpit displays and a new Chinese-built radar system, and the Phantoms are now expected to remain in service until 2025, by which stage some of Iran’s aircraft will be sixty years old.

F-4 PHANTOM |105 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 105

05/01/2015 20:39

(Photos: Ton van Schaik & Erik Sleutelberg)

Japan Japan’s long association with the Phantom began in the late 1960s, the Nihon Koku Jietai (Japan Air Self-Defense Force) ultimately acquiring 154 Phantoms for both air defence and reconnaissance. There was no question of embracing any offensive role as Japan was obliged to maintain only a defensive force under international treaty. The fighter version proposed for Japan was designated F-4EJ, (essentially a straightforward export version of the F-4E) and (except for an initial pair that was assembled by McDonnell) they were built under license in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. The reconnaissance version offered to Japan was designated RF-4EJ (the standard export model of the reconnaissance variant) but was built in the

USA by McDonnell, the smaller number of aircraft involved making license production uneconomic. The F-4EJ was ordered for the JASDF on November 1st 1968. It was optimized for the air defence role, the AN/ AJB-7 bombing system being omitted, and no provision for the carriage or delivery of air-to-ground weapons was incorporated. Additionally, the Mitsubishi-built Phantoms were not fitted with inflight refuelling receptacles, although this facility was subsequently retrofitted. Two F-4EJs (JASDF serials 17-8301 and 17-8302) were manufactured by McDonnell and flight tested, beginning on January 14th 1971. The next 11 aircraft were built by McDonnell in kit form and were assembled in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. The first Japanese-assembled aircraft (27-8303) flew

on May 12th 1972. Subsequently, Mitsubishi built 127 F-4EJs under license, the last example being delivered on May 20th 1981. This (17-8440) was in fact the last Phantom to be manufactured. Fourteen reconnaissance versions of the F-4EJ were built by McDonnell and delivered to the JASDF between November 1974 and June 1975, designated as the RF-4EJ. They were virtually identical to the USAF’s RF-4C, the only differences being the deletion of equipment such as the radar homing and warning suite. The F-4EJ first entered service with the JASDF in August 1972. In total, six JASDF interceptor squadrons (hikotai) have operated the F-4EJ, these being the 301st, 302nd, 303rd, 304th, 305th, and 306th. The RF-4EJ was operated by the 501st Hikotai, replacing that unit’s aged RF-86F Sabres.

106

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 106

05/01/2015 20:39

F-4 Phantom

Throughout the 1980s, the force of 140 F-4EJs gradually dwindled (due to attrition) and reached 125 by 1992, although the F-15 Eagle began to come into service during the late 1980s, therefore the JASDF had no need to replace the lost Phantoms, and most of the surviving JASDF F-4EJs were upgraded to F-4EJ Kai standard. The F-4EJ Kai upgrade programme brought the F-4EJ up to standards appropriate for the 1990s and beyond, the first F-4EJ Kai entering service with 306 Hikotai in November 1989. It had originally been planned to upgrade 110 of the 125 surviving F-4EJs to Kai standards, but this was later changed to just 96 as a cost saving measure. The JASDF also upgraded 11 of its RF-4Es to RF-4E Kai standards, modifications including the replacement of the AN/APQ-99 radar by an

AN/APQ-172 unit with digital image processing. The J/APR-2 RWR was replaced by J/APr-5, although because of budgetary restrictions, not all of the RF-4E Kais were fitted with the AN/APQ-172 radar suite. Seventeen of the remaining 29 F-4EJs that were not scheduled to be converted to F-4EJ Kai status were converted to the reconnaissance role under the designation RF-4EJ, with the remaining 12 aircraft retired. These aircraft had the nose Vulcan cannon removed, but differ from the RF-4E/RF-4E Kai in not having any internal reconnaissance equipment. They can however carry three types of sensor pods, depending on mission requirements. These comprise the TACER (an elecronic reconnaissance pod with datalink), the TAC (carrying KS-135A and KS-95B cameras, plus a D-500UR IR system) and the

LOROP (with KS-146B camera). A total of 17 F-14EJ Kais was converted to the reconnaissance role, all being assigned to the 501st Hikotai. This unit also uses the 12 remaining RF-4E aircraft, ten of which are completed to Kai standards. By April 1994, F-4EJ strength was reduced to only three squadrons, with 303, 304, 305, and 306 Hikotai all having converted to the F-15 in the early 1990s. The squadrons remaining were the 8 Hikotai of the 3 Kokudan based at Misawa, the 301 Hikotai of the 5 Kokudan based at Nyutabaru, and the 302 Hikotai of the 83 Kokutai based at Naha on Okinawa. The reconnaissance Phantoms serve with the 501 Hikotai based at Hyakuri. These F-4EJ squadrons remain active, although the Phantom’s final replacement may not now be too far away.

F-4 PHANTOM |107 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 107

05/01/2015 20:39

(Photos: Tim McLelland collection, RAF & Mike Freer)

Turkey The Turk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) eventually acquired some 233 F-4Es and RF-4Es and became a major operator of the Phantom from the 1970s onwards, receiving both new-build aircraft from McDonnell, and a significant number of older aircraft transferred from other Air Forces. The first order was for 40 new-build F-4Es, acquired in fiscal year 1973 under the project name Peace Diamond III. These were delivered to Turkey starting in August 1974, equipping 161 Filo (squadron) of 6 Ana Jet Us (Jet Air Base). After operating the Phantom for some time, this unit reequipped with the F-16C Fighting Falcon, and its Phantoms were transferred to 7 Air Base at Erhac, where they replaced F-5As with Filo 171 and 172. Filo 173 later joined 7 JAB as the Phantom Operational Conversion

Unit, assuming the role of the Simsek Kita (flight) at Eskisehir, which disbanded by 1977. An second order for 32 more newbuild F-4Es and eight RF-4Es was issued in Fiscal Year 1977, also under the terms of Peace Diamond III. These Phantoms were issued to 111, 112, and 113 Filo of JAB 1 based at Eskisehir. 111 and 112 Filo received the F-4Es, which replaced F-100 Super Sabres, while 113 Filo acquired the RF-4Es to augment (and eventually replace) their RF-84Fs. A few years later, 15 former USAF F-4Es Phantoms were delivered in June 1981 to equip the newly-established 173 Filo of JAB 7. Then, after three more years, 15 more ex-USAF F-4Es arrived in mid-1984, these being used as attrition replacements that were distributed among st both THK Phantom wings. Turkey subsequently consolidated its association with the

Phantom through the acquisition of more “second-hand” aircraft, and several batches of former USAF F-4Es were obtained, starting with the Peace Diamond IV programme in June-October 1987. A total of 40 planes was delivered under that programme, providing attrition replacements and equipment for new squadrons. Primarily, they were issued to Filo 131 and 132 of 3 JAB, based at Konya, a wing that had previously flown F-100Ds and had been a training unit. The arrival of Phantoms in 1988 allowed it to become a fully operational active-duty combat unit. Turkey was a strong supporter of US policy during the Gulf War, and partly in return for this support, the US Government directed yet more Phantoms to the country, and 40 former USAF Phantoms were supplied to re-equip 112 Filo and 172 Filo, starting with an an initial delivery of four aircraft on March

108

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 108

05/01/2015 20:40

F-4 Phantom

25, 1991. Another substantial batch followed in the shape of 32 Luftwaffe RF-4E reconnaissance aircraft that were delivered between 1992 and 1994, and issued to 113 Filo at Eskisehir. During 1993-1994, 173 Filo was re-equipped with RF-4Es and the unit’s F-4Es were transferred to 172 Filo. 172 Filo’s F-4Es were transferred to 171 Filo. 171 Filo assumed a ground attack mission, 172 Filo an interception role, and 173 a photographic reconnaissance role. During August of 1995, Israel Aircraft Industries was awarded a $600 million contract to upgrade 54 THK F-4Es to Phantom 2000 standards. IAI received the contract after strong competition from Daimler Benz Aerospace, who had offered an upgrade based on the Luftwaffe F-4F ICE program. Under the agreed programme, first 26 aircraft were upgraded in Israel, with kits provided for the remaining 28 upgrades to

be completed in Turkey. The upgraded Phantom’s new radar is an Elta Electronics ELO/M-2032 radar originally developed for the Lavi, instead of the originally-proposed Norden APG-76. A Kaiser/El-OP wide angle HUD is also provided and a hands-on throttle-and-stick system (HOTAS) is provided for the pilot. An Astronautics air data computer is installed, along with Elsra SPS-100 and Elta passive/active electronic warfare systems. An embedded GPS INS is also installed. Other changes involve structural reinforcements to improve fatigue life, a complete rewiring of the internal electrical system, and the addition of small strakes above the intake flanks to improve combat manoeuvrability. The THK is reported to have (unofficially) named the upgraded aircraft the F-4E 2020 ‘Terminator’ and anticipates that the upgrade will give

the aircraft at least two decades of additional service life. The first F-4E aircraft scheduled for upgrade were 73-1025 and 73-1032 and these were delivered to Israel in February 1997. The first example completed to the new standard F-4E 2020 was 73-1025, which flew for the first time on February 11th 1999. Deliveries started with 68-498 and 71-1032 in January 2000. The upgrade programme applied to aircraft assigned to to 111 Filo and 171 Filo and the upgrade programme ended in 2003. Further upgrade projects are likely to be applied and there are plans to upgrade the RF-4Es by adding new long-range oblique photography and sensor systems. Although it seems unlikely that any further Phantoms will be acquired, it also seems likely that Turkey’s Phantoms will continue to operate for many more years.

F-4 PHANTOM |109 †††

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 109

05/01/2015 20:40

(Photos: Tim McLelland collection)

South Korea The Hankook Kong Gon (Republic of Korea Air Force) acquired its first Phantoms during the late 1960s, and continues be a significant user of the Phantom. Back in 1968 the Republic of Korea ordered an initial batch of 18 F-4Ds, largely in response to a growing number of border clashes with North Korea. The order was filled using aircraft drawn from existing USAF stocks rather than by newly manufactured aircraft. The transfer programme was named Operation Peace Spectator and the first four F-4Ds arrived in Korea in August 1969. After delivery they were supplied to the 110th TFS of the 11th FW based at Taegu. In 1972, the RoKAF received 18 more F-4Ds drawn from the USAF’s locally-based 3rd TFW. These were supplied in return for the Korean Government’s agreement to transfer 36 Northrop F-5s to South Vietnam under the Enhance Plus program. The F-4Ds were supplied to the 157st TFS of the 11th FW. The aircraft were officially only on loan to Korea, but the transfer was eventually made

permanent. A few more USAF F-4Ds were also operated by the RoKAF on short-term loan basis during the 1970s, but six were permanently supplied to the RoKAF in 1982 to make up for attrition, and a further 24 were delivered between December 1987 and April 1988. This last batch was equipped with Pave Spike laser designators and this final batch enabled the ROKAF to bring its two F-4D squadrons back to full strength and to equip a third unit. Ultimately, some 92 former USAF F-4Ds were transferred to South Korea, the last being delivered in 1988, and approximately 60 of these remain in service. The RoKAF ordered 37 new-build F-4Es from McDonnell during the early 1970s, receiving the first examples in 1978. The last of these (78-0744) was the 5068th and last Phantom to be built by McDonnell. These 37 machines were delivered under Operation Peace Pheasant II and went to the 152nd and 153re TFS of the 17th TFW based at Chongju. Subsequently, Korea received further batches of former USAF F-4Es, bringing the F-4E total fleet to 103, and as of 2012 approximately 55

of these remain in service. When the USAF’s Korea-based 460th TRG disbanded in late 1990, 12 of their RF-4Cs were transferred to the RoKAF, together with a quantity of AN/ ALQ-131 jamming pods. These were given to the 131st TRS of the 39th TRG based at Suwon. Finally, 11 additional former USAF RF-4Cs were transferred over to Korea. In 1989, the Republic of Korea’s Agency for Defense Development announced a plan to upgrade the radar and avionics of surviving F-4D/E aircraft. In 1993, DASA submitted a series of proposals to the Korean government to upgrade 38 F-4Es to make them suitable for BVR missions. Rockwell also issued a set of proposals for upgrades based on the Westinghouse APG-66. However, funding priorities resulted in only relatively minor upgrades, designed primarily to extend the service life. Several F-4Es have been modified to carry the AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack laser targeting pod and around 30 F-4Es have been equipped to carry the Lockheed Martin/ Rafael AGM-142 Raptor/Popeye stand-off missile.

110

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 110

05/01/2015 20:40

F-4 Phantom

F-4 PHANTOM |111

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 111

05/01/2015 20:41

Spain Spain’s Ejercito del Aire (EdA) acquired an initial batch of 36 former USAF F-4C Phantoms between October 1971 and September 1972, through the Mutual Defense Aid Program. Acquired as replacements for the F-104G Starfighter and the F-86F Sabre in front-line air defence units, the programme was designated as Peace Alfa. The F-4Cs were designated C.12 in EdA service, the ‘C’ denoting fighter (Caza) and the ‘12’ indicating that the Phantom was the 12th fighter type to enter service in Spain, since the Civil War. They were allocated serials C.12-01 to C.12-36. Ala 12 (12th Wing) based at Torrejon was formed

to operate the Phantom. There were two squadrons, these being Escuadrones 121 and 122. In support of Phantom operations, the EdA also acquired three Boeing KC-97Ls refuelling tankers and these were operated for some four years in support of the Phantoms until they were replaced by KC-130H tankers. In October 1978 the EdA acquired four more former USAF F-4Cs as attrition replacements under project Peace Alfa II, with serial numbers C.12-37 to C.12-40 being assigned. At the same time, four former USAF RF-4Cs unarmed reconnaissance aircraft were also acquired. The RF-4Cs were designated as the CR.12 in EdA service, with serials CR.12-41 to CR.12-44

being assigned to the fleet. After a successful service life the F-4C Phantoms were replaced by EF-18A/B Hornets during the late 1980s, the last F-4C being withdrawn from front-line EdA service in April 1989. By this stage seven had been lost in accidents. The Phantom had been out of front-line service with the EdA for nearly ten years when eight former USAF RF-4Cs taken from the 123rd TRW, Kentucky ANG were delivered to Spain in 1989 to form a new unit, this being 123 Escuadron within Ala 12 at Torrejon. The aircraft were acquired to fill a temporary capability gap until Hornets could be fitted with a suitable reconnaissance pod. The RF-4Cs differed from the first batch of four RF-4Cs in being

112

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 112

05/01/2015 20:41

F-4 PHANTOM

equipped with new radios, new radar warning equipment, new VOR/ILS equipment and KS-86 cameras. The aircraft were also powered by ‘smokeless’ J79-GE-15E engines. After delivery, they were subsequently fitted with several upgrades whilst in service, including AN/APQ-172 terrain-following radar, new ECM systems, a laser ring inertial navigation system, and bolt-on refuelling probes permanently plumbed into the dorsal refuelling probe receptacle. They were assigned serial numbers CR.12-45 to CR.12-52. To support the new batch of RF-4Cs, a single RF-4C from the first batch (CR.12-42) was retained, together with six F-4Cs from the original batch (C.12-09,

C.12-10, C.12-14, C.12-19, C.12-37, and C.12-20) for service as target tugs and weapons test platforms. The last of these elderly F-4Cs was finally retired in 1990. Six more former USAF RF-4Cs were delivered in October 1995 and these replaced the EdA’s first batch of RF-4Cs. The new deliveries were fitted with Have Quick digital UHF/VHF communication radios, Itek AN/ARL-46 radar warning receivers, Tracor AN/ALE-40 chaff/ flare dispensers, plus the ability to carry and launch up to four AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles. In late 1996 a series of upgrades was initiated, including the replacement of the APQ-99 terrain-following radar by the Texas Instruments AN/APQ-172 radar, a ring

laser-gyro INS, plus the addition of a bolt-on refuelling probe (although the original USAF refuelling system is still installed). It had originally planned that the RF-4C would continue in service with the Ejercito del Aire until at least 2010. However, the last RF-4C was retired from the EdA at Torrejon Air Base on October 18th 2002, this retirement also marking the disbandment of Escuadron 123 de Reconocimiento Fotografico. The decision to retire the Phantom early was reluctantly taken after signs of corrosion were found in the hydraulic pipes in some aircraft, the estimated cost of repairs being prohibitive when compared to the projected service life of the airframes.

F-4 PHANTOM |113

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 113

05/01/2015 20:41

In the United States, QF-4 Phantoms are still used as target drones by the 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group at Holloman AFB and at Tyndall Air Force Base. They are remotely flown during the air-to-air weapons system evaluation program known as Combat Archer in which pilots gain valuable air combat training and experience targeting and firing missiles at the drone aircraft. The QF-4 will eventually be replaced by the QF-16, which is now gradually coming into service in the unmanned role. Many of the Phantoms retain their former service camouflage colours (albeit with high-visibility markings added), although a small number of aircraft have been carefully restored to represent USAF paint schemes from earlier eras. These aircraft have appeared at air shows across the continental US. (Photos: USAF)

114

Chapter SIX 94-114 Phantom.indd 114

05/01/2015 20:42

A O NL S O W AVA IN ILA DO B W LE S8

ICONS Your favourite magazine is now available digitally. DOWNLOAD THE APP NOW FOR FREE. ILLUSTRATED

FREE APP

F-4 PHANTOM

IN APP ISSUES £6.99

THE ST.LOUIS SLUGGER

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE 12 months £29.99

F-4 PHANTOM

NAuTicAl NAsceNce The Phantom enters service with the US Navy and Marine Corpsa

Icons No 17

£7.95

ICONS 001 Phantom.indd 1

T

he US Navy conducted a Primary Evaluation on the Phantom in September 1958, and as one of the evaluation team later commented, they “put it through every conceivable stress. We were really wringing the new bird out and it impressed us as one sturdy flying machine.” It was also vitally important that the Phantom should be suitable for carrier operations and the aircraft was assigned to carrier trials in February 1960. F4H-1 143391 (the sixth aircraft) was selected for the trials and it was flown directly to the USS Independence where18 catapult launches and recoveries were made from the carrier during the aircraft’s five-day stay. Everyone was impressed by the aircraft’s handling characteristics and its extreme ruggedness, and just two months later the same aircraft was deployed to the USS Intrepid, a smaller carrier, from which another 20 successful launches and arrested landings were made. In addition to the full-stop landings, a series of wave-off approaches was also included in this second carrier trial (held from 25-27 April) and the aircraft made some particularly demanding approaches on one engine, without the use of afterburner. Minor modifications to the aircraft’s tail hook were made in response to some of the lesssatisfactory approaches in which the hook sometimes had skipped over the arrestor cables, but in all other respects the trials proved to be very satisfactory. Some 47 F4H-1

Although aerial refuelling was a necessary part of the Phantom’s capabilities from the outset, the prospect of using the Phantom as a refuelling tanker was also investigated, and a specially-designed refuelling system was tested thoroughly, as illustrated in this image. The refuelling equipment was contained within an external pod and would have enabled us Navy Phantom units to refuel their own aircraft. However the cost of developing and operating the system was judged to be unnecessary as skywarrior aircraft were already available to act as dedicated takers. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection) aircraft (which were eventually re-designated as the F-4A) were initially ordered, followed by two successive orders, each for 72 aircraft (the F-4B). Significantly, the US Marine Corps wanted the Phantom as much as the Navy did and the introduction of the Phantom into operational service was conducted almost simultaneously for both the US Navy and

Marines. The creation of the first Replacement Air Groups began late in 1959. The RAGs would be the first Phantom squadrons, tasked with the training of new crews, and bringing the aircraft up to a combat-ready status. VF-101, the “Grim Reapers” was the first unit to be assigned to this task, based at NAS

First service operators of the F4H-1 were VF-101 Detachment A, based at NAs Oceana in Virginia. They began operations in June 1960, and a second detachment was established at NAs Key West in Florida in 1962, when the Phantoms transferred there from Oceana. These early aircraft were devoid of unit markings, other than the tail code and the ‘Det A’ markings on the fuselage and external fuel tank. As was common with most reserve and training aircraft during that period, liberal applications of fluorescent orange paint were applied to the aircraft. (Photo: Tim McLelland collection)

SEARCH: Aeroplane Icons

05/01/2015 14:08

An F-4B streaks over the deck of the uss Kennedy with hook, slats and flaps down, ready to take the arrester cable which can be seen just a few feet ahead of the aircraft. (Photo: Aeroplane) 22

F-4 PHANTOM | 23 †††

Chapter Two 22-39 Phantom.indd 22-23

Read on your

iPhone & iPad

05/01/2015 14:10

Android

PC & Mac

SEARCH

ALSO

JETS

AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD

kindle fire

Blackberry

Windows 8

SEARCH AEROPLANE

FREE APP

FREE APP

IN APP ISSUES £3.99

IN APP ISSUES £3.99

How it Works. Simply download the Aeroplane Icons app. Once you have the app, you will be able to download new or back issues (from January 2012 onwards) for less than newsstand price or, alternatively, subscribe to save even more! Don’t forget to register for your Pocketmags account. This will protect your purchase in the event of a damaged or lost device. It will also allow you to view your purchases on multiple platforms. PC, Mac & Windows 8

iTunes

Available on PC, Mac, Blackberry, Windows 8 and kindle fire from Requirements for app: registered iTunes account on Apple iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4S, 5, iPod Touch or iPad 1, 2 or 3. Internet connection required for initial download. Published by Key Publishing Ltd. The entire contents of these titles are © copyright 2014. All rights reserved. App prices subject to change. 003/15

ICONS Back cover Phantom.indd 1

05/01/2015 20:43