Auf Wiedersehn, Phantom!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Auf Wiedersehn, Phantom!
Had a good long run. Hope they preserve a few.
Auf Wiedersehn, Phantom!
The Luftwaffe's last F-4F Phantom IIs bade their final farewell on 29 June to a crowd of 130,000 people attending an open day at their home base of Wittmund. Since the landing of the Luftwaffe's first two Phantoms at Wittmund on 31 August 1973, the aircraft clocked up 279,000 flying hours.
Luftwaffe photo by Toni Dahmen
At the time, the Phantom was meant to serve five to 10 years, a period which was extended to 15 but ended up lasting four decades.
Luftwaffe photo by Christian Esser
Auf Wiedersehn, Phantom!
The Luftwaffe's last F-4F Phantom IIs bade their final farewell on 29 June to a crowd of 130,000 people attending an open day at their home base of Wittmund. Since the landing of the Luftwaffe's first two Phantoms at Wittmund on 31 August 1973, the aircraft clocked up 279,000 flying hours.
Luftwaffe photo by Toni DahmenAt the time, the Phantom was meant to serve five to 10 years, a period which was extended to 15 but ended up lasting four decades.
Luftwaffe photo by Christian Esser
I got chatting to a couple of very young Luftwaffe F4 pilots at Fairford last year and they still felt the love for the Toom and it's He-Man abilities, would lament it's retirement, but were looking forward to the Eurofighter as their next steed. A testament to the sturdiness of the aircraft and care given to it by the mechanics that allowed it to last so long.
Suspicion breeds confidence
We had F4s for both the Navy and the RAF. How come the box-heads have managed to make theirs last so long when ours were clapped out 20 years ago?
Navaleye,
110 x F-4F were upgraded under the Improved Combat Efficiency (ICE) program which was completed in 1992. The main changes were introduction of the APG-65 radar (as in F/A-18 Hornet) and AMRAAM.
Several alternatives to ICE were considered - such as short-term gap filler purchases of other aircraft types until Eurofighter was available - but ICE was considered the most economical and ended up enabling exactly the plan that was intended.
110 x F-4F were upgraded under the Improved Combat Efficiency (ICE) program which was completed in 1992. The main changes were introduction of the APG-65 radar (as in F/A-18 Hornet) and AMRAAM.
Several alternatives to ICE were considered - such as short-term gap filler purchases of other aircraft types until Eurofighter was available - but ICE was considered the most economical and ended up enabling exactly the plan that was intended.
The Luftwaffe F-4Fs were also maintained to a very high standard.
Not for them the speed tape and black bodge tape standards of others.
In addition, their aircraft were always immaculately turned out.
Not for them the speed tape and black bodge tape standards of others.
In addition, their aircraft were always immaculately turned out.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
I remember reading somewhere they had two that were flown off the production line to a Lufty technical school in Germany, so only had delivery hours on them.
Often wonder if they ever went into service, they had under 50 hours on them, mind you in service mods etc would have been needed to bring them up to service standards.
The old F-4 did some pretty amazing things.... Pardo's push for one.
..
Often wonder if they ever went into service, they had under 50 hours on them, mind you in service mods etc would have been needed to bring them up to service standards.
The old F-4 did some pretty amazing things.... Pardo's push for one.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 2nd Jul 2013 at 17:04.
Strange how we developed and built the Tornado F3 to replaced the F4 and they retired when??
Perhaps we should have just upgraded our F4s in the early 90s and went straight onto Typhoon like the Germans
Perhaps we should have just upgraded our F4s in the early 90s and went straight onto Typhoon like the Germans
Typerated,
The rumour was the RAF wanted to 'keep up' with the USN/USAF and replace the F4 with F14 or F15....then BAe said 'but we've got a fighter version of Tornado....' and the rest is history. The former, with the AWG-9/AIM-54 combo would have appeared a perfect fit for the 1980s RAF war role of intercepting the Soviet bomber force before it either hit the UK or ReForGer convoys.
Would an upgraded F4 (a la Luftwaffe) been a better bet than the F3? Moot point given the politics, but perhaps our jets were a little more tired than the German ones given their early use as mudmovers?
The rumour was the RAF wanted to 'keep up' with the USN/USAF and replace the F4 with F14 or F15....then BAe said 'but we've got a fighter version of Tornado....' and the rest is history. The former, with the AWG-9/AIM-54 combo would have appeared a perfect fit for the 1980s RAF war role of intercepting the Soviet bomber force before it either hit the UK or ReForGer convoys.
Would an upgraded F4 (a la Luftwaffe) been a better bet than the F3? Moot point given the politics, but perhaps our jets were a little more tired than the German ones given their early use as mudmovers?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great to see the Luftwaffe give their F-4s a proper send off, shame the RAF couldn't have done the same, but then again, the Tornado F.3 passed without much fanfare as well...
-RP
p.s. apologies for mentioning the Tornado in a thread about the F-4!
-RP
p.s. apologies for mentioning the Tornado in a thread about the F-4!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
And no doubt they will be offered to museums far and wide across Germany for free, unlike the UK where the likes of the Moravia lot up in Scotland would like a VC10 but cannot raise the funds to secure one, seems heritage is ok in the UK, but at a price.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well clearly the US have given permission because there is already a full airframe (de-mil) up for auction! Don't seem to remember that happening for UK F-4s... Unless of course you were a scrap merchant!
Didn't Hanningfield(?) Metals try and preserve XV404 in the full tiger scheme only to be told by the MOD, SCRAP IT!!!
-RP
Didn't Hanningfield(?) Metals try and preserve XV404 in the full tiger scheme only to be told by the MOD, SCRAP IT!!!
-RP
Last edited by Rhino power; 3rd Jul 2013 at 00:31.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once any good stuff is taken out, I doubt the F4 would be of interest
to many although they wouldn't want Iran getting hold of them.
The US allowed the F-111's to be handed off to places here in Aus
once some classified stuff was taken out although I think most
are under Gov't control.
to many although they wouldn't want Iran getting hold of them.
The US allowed the F-111's to be handed off to places here in Aus
once some classified stuff was taken out although I think most
are under Gov't control.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just seems at odds to when the UK F-4s were retired that under no circumstances were civvy organizations to be allowed to save one yet, the Lufty have at least one up for general auction?
-RP
-RP
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
CFE treaty. During the Cold War the US was more insistent on the F4s being scrapped both for the CFE treaty and to keep spares out of the hands of the Iranians. With the massive reductions in total numbers I doubt the CFE worries anyone anymore, but after the F14 Iranian spares rumpus I'm sure they'll ensure the limits and rules are observed.
SECTION X - PROCEDURE FOR REDUCTION
BY MEANS OF STATIC DISPLAY
Section X consists of five paragraphs. This Section sets forth the rights, obligations, and procedures with respect to the reduction of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment by means of static display. However, Section X places a cap on the number of items that may be reduced by means of static display. Also, before such items may be placed on display, they must first undergo reduction procedures at reduction sites. As a result, they will be subject to inspection without right of refusal while undergoing the procedures. Paragraph 1 of Section X provides that each State Party has the right to reduce a certain number of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment by means of static display.
Paragraph 2 of Section X provides that no State Party shall use static display to reduce more than one percent or eight items, whichever is greater, of its maximum levels for holdings it declared at signature of the Treaty for each category of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment.
Paragraph 3 of Section X provides that, notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 above, each State Party also has the right to retain in working order two items of each existing type of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment for the purpose of static display. Paragraph 3 further provides that such items shall be displayed at museums or similar sites. In this regard, the Protocol on Existing Types lists the existing types of conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty..........
SECTION X - PROCEDURE FOR REDUCTION
BY MEANS OF STATIC DISPLAY
Section X consists of five paragraphs. This Section sets forth the rights, obligations, and procedures with respect to the reduction of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment by means of static display. However, Section X places a cap on the number of items that may be reduced by means of static display. Also, before such items may be placed on display, they must first undergo reduction procedures at reduction sites. As a result, they will be subject to inspection without right of refusal while undergoing the procedures. Paragraph 1 of Section X provides that each State Party has the right to reduce a certain number of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment by means of static display.
Paragraph 2 of Section X provides that no State Party shall use static display to reduce more than one percent or eight items, whichever is greater, of its maximum levels for holdings it declared at signature of the Treaty for each category of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment.
Paragraph 3 of Section X provides that, notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 above, each State Party also has the right to retain in working order two items of each existing type of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment for the purpose of static display. Paragraph 3 further provides that such items shall be displayed at museums or similar sites. In this regard, the Protocol on Existing Types lists the existing types of conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty..........
Last edited by ORAC; 3rd Jul 2013 at 06:57.