F-4 Phantom in UK service
Thread Starter
F-4 Phantom in UK service
Ppruners...
following on from the Buccs and Black Buck thread, which ended up straying into F-4 territory, i'd be grateful if you could educate me.
in the above thread it was very clear that by 1982 the UK F-4 fleet, both K and M, were air defence interceptors and air defence interceptors only - so, my question is, how (why?) did the F-4's that were delivered in the 60's and 70's as true swing role capable fighter bombers and which were established in that role, with the original RAF FGR2's being specifically roled for CAS, interdiction and strike, turn into aircraft that thirteen years later were unable to drop a single bomb or fire a single rocket?
cheers.
following on from the Buccs and Black Buck thread, which ended up straying into F-4 territory, i'd be grateful if you could educate me.
in the above thread it was very clear that by 1982 the UK F-4 fleet, both K and M, were air defence interceptors and air defence interceptors only - so, my question is, how (why?) did the F-4's that were delivered in the 60's and 70's as true swing role capable fighter bombers and which were established in that role, with the original RAF FGR2's being specifically roled for CAS, interdiction and strike, turn into aircraft that thirteen years later were unable to drop a single bomb or fire a single rocket?
cheers.
It's not just airframes there was a whole political angle to the UK F4 buy...which started with,if not before, the P1154, which in turn led to the ill fated F111K order which in turn led to the F4K/M purchase.
Add to that as has been said the Buccs becoming available, and the Jag on it's way and you can see why the F4 ended up as a full time ADer....
Add to that as has been said the Buccs becoming available, and the Jag on it's way and you can see why the F4 ended up as a full time ADer....
Yes, the UK's '50/50 Phantom' with Spey engine eventually cost 3 times the price of a normal US-spec F-4 - and was the world's most powerful and slowest version... All to do with 'balance of payments' or somesuch, as well as Wislon's 'pound in your pocket' nonsense of 1967.
The whole TSR-2 / P.1154 / F-111K fiasco, plus French shenanigans with the AFVG and the 'Gnat replacement' Jaguar being transmogrified into a low level strike aircraft, spawning the need for HS1182 - was a very complicated political procurement farce. But we eventually came out of it with 4 new front line aircraft types for the RAF which served the RAF well even when Tornado GRI and F2/F3 were coming on stream.
As a VC10K tanker pilot, working with around 8/9 different types of fast jet in the mid-80s made for extremely interesting times - Buccaneer, Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, Phantom and F4J(UK), Sea Harrier, Tornado GR1 and Tornado F2/F3!
The whole TSR-2 / P.1154 / F-111K fiasco, plus French shenanigans with the AFVG and the 'Gnat replacement' Jaguar being transmogrified into a low level strike aircraft, spawning the need for HS1182 - was a very complicated political procurement farce. But we eventually came out of it with 4 new front line aircraft types for the RAF which served the RAF well even when Tornado GRI and F2/F3 were coming on stream.
As a VC10K tanker pilot, working with around 8/9 different types of fast jet in the mid-80s made for extremely interesting times - Buccaneer, Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, Phantom and F4J(UK), Sea Harrier, Tornado GR1 and Tornado F2/F3!
What did the RAF plan for air defence in the 70s/80s before the Phantom was ordered? It was ordered in place of the P1154, which in RAF was intended as a ground attack/strike aircraft (Hunter replacement) so presumably in that (post Sandys) era, the RAF must have been planning something to replace the Lightning?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,236
Received 54 Likes
on
22 Posts
In the early 1960s I don't think the RAF were even thinking about it. The Lightning force was still building up, and the Bloodhound SAM was also shiny and new.
How much consideration was given for the Phantom to take on the air defence role en masse when it was purchased in 1965 I am not sure; certainly 43 and then 29 had new AD Phantoms from the start, but the remaining squadrons all had hand-me-downs. Had the P.1154 entered service with Strike Command, however, there would have had to have been procurement of a dedicated AD aircraft as it was not at all suitable for the job. Possibly a variant of the RN P.1154 would have been chosen to replace the Lightning in the mid-1970s- whether the Navy had bought it or not- but the Air Staff may have sought a clean sheet design or considered the F-4E, which was still very much in production at St. Louis
Alternatively the RAF may have looked to procure the new fighter that was taking shape at the same factory, the F-15, bravely choosing to run the Lightning on until the late 1970s/early 1980s. With an early order the RAF could have been fielding an operational Eagle squadron by 1979, and that would have meant, of course, no Tornado ADV either.
Whether of course the RAF could have afforded enough F-15s to replace the Lightning outright is another matter, and I suspect that there would still have been two Lightning squadrons retained in the UK, and maybe even the two RAFG squadrons. This may well have led to a more urgent need for what became the Typhoon, and another deviation from what actually happened.
Solve one problem, and another springs up...
How much consideration was given for the Phantom to take on the air defence role en masse when it was purchased in 1965 I am not sure; certainly 43 and then 29 had new AD Phantoms from the start, but the remaining squadrons all had hand-me-downs. Had the P.1154 entered service with Strike Command, however, there would have had to have been procurement of a dedicated AD aircraft as it was not at all suitable for the job. Possibly a variant of the RN P.1154 would have been chosen to replace the Lightning in the mid-1970s- whether the Navy had bought it or not- but the Air Staff may have sought a clean sheet design or considered the F-4E, which was still very much in production at St. Louis
Alternatively the RAF may have looked to procure the new fighter that was taking shape at the same factory, the F-15, bravely choosing to run the Lightning on until the late 1970s/early 1980s. With an early order the RAF could have been fielding an operational Eagle squadron by 1979, and that would have meant, of course, no Tornado ADV either.
Whether of course the RAF could have afforded enough F-15s to replace the Lightning outright is another matter, and I suspect that there would still have been two Lightning squadrons retained in the UK, and maybe even the two RAFG squadrons. This may well have led to a more urgent need for what became the Typhoon, and another deviation from what actually happened.
Solve one problem, and another springs up...
Specification F.155T was for a high altitude supersonic interceptor to supplement the Lightning, which was only intended be a point defence fighter. By 1957 the competing designs had been narrowed down to the Fairy Delta 3 and the Armstrong Whitworth AW169. Some of the other contenders were truly enormous; the Saunders Roe SR.187 being 84ft long and weighing around 98000lb!
Of course the wretched Duncan Sandys scuppered any further development with his infamous White Paper, leaving the RAF with the Hunter, Javelin and Lightning.
Of course the wretched Duncan Sandys scuppered any further development with his infamous White Paper, leaving the RAF with the Hunter, Javelin and Lightning.
I know - I remember seeing it on TV at the time!
Delightful little aircraft that it was, the SR.53 would have been pretty useless without either an on-board radar system or a data link.
Delightful little aircraft that it was, the SR.53 would have been pretty useless without either an on-board radar system or a data link.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
BEagle,
Although you have a downer on the UK F4, in the depth of the Cold War (late 70's) the RAF F4s in 2ATAF ruled the skys of Europe. Previously in the "Mud" roles they had been exceptional. At a time when successive Governments changed defence policy as often as they changed their socks at least the flexibility of such a great aircraft was able to meet the requirement of the time.
As for your comment
I am not sure what your point is. On an AAR Track you put the hoses out and guided an orderly queue. On trails the AARC made a plan which you enforced. Only on SAOEU trails with 3 types with differing requirements were you made to work for you money!!
Although you have a downer on the UK F4, in the depth of the Cold War (late 70's) the RAF F4s in 2ATAF ruled the skys of Europe. Previously in the "Mud" roles they had been exceptional. At a time when successive Governments changed defence policy as often as they changed their socks at least the flexibility of such a great aircraft was able to meet the requirement of the time.
As for your comment
As a VC10K tanker pilot, working with around 8/9 different types of fast jet in the mid-80s made for extremely interesting times
Dominator2, I certainly don't have a downer on the UK F-4 - only on daft UK procurement policies of the 1960s. I'm well aware how good the FGR2 was as a multi-role jet.
But as an American once said "Why did you guys leave out the best part of the F-4 - the J-79!" - and the 50/50 F-4 with the added thrust to use UK carriers was hampered at higher speed by the big intakes.
Regarding AAR, you clearly have little idea of the work involved in the provision of a flexible, efficient service to meet the varying needs of different receiver types....which is fine by me; as a receiver pilot all one wants to see is the swan on the surface, rather than the paddling of feet needed!
But as an American once said "Why did you guys leave out the best part of the F-4 - the J-79!" - and the 50/50 F-4 with the added thrust to use UK carriers was hampered at higher speed by the big intakes.
Regarding AAR, you clearly have little idea of the work involved in the provision of a flexible, efficient service to meet the varying needs of different receiver types....which is fine by me; as a receiver pilot all one wants to see is the swan on the surface, rather than the paddling of feet needed!
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Nov 2017 at 12:39.
Regarding AAR, you clearly have little idea of the work involved in the provision of a flexible, efficient service to meet the varying needs of different receiver types....
“I’m just going to turn to speed up the join” from the tanker captain always translates to “just ruined the geometry resulting in a massive tailchase for you”.
Frodo_monkey, any ar$e doing that without having first co-ordinated the proposal with the controller and/or receivers rightly deserves such castigation!
My receiver experience on the F-4 against a Victor would normally be "I see you about to join, so I'll turn through the sun....".
My receiver experience on the F-4 against a Victor would normally be "I see you about to join, so I'll turn through the sun....".
A Lightning F7 was muted by BAe from as early as 1963 with the following:
- variable geometry wings
- extended fuselage
- relocated undercarriage
- underwing hardpoints
- cheek mounted intakes
- new radar for use with Sparrow / Skyflash
- originally it was going to be single seat - later idea was 2-seat a la T5
A Sea Lightning was also proposed.
Later the Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG) was originally going to have an AD role for the RAF. It switched to strike / attack - at this point to supplement the F-111K - after the decision to buy F-4K was made
Personally I would much rather have seen F-4E (twice as many compared to Phantom FG1/FGR2 for the same money) - Buccaneer 2* instead of Tornado GR1 - and F-15E when it was offered around 1989/1990 for GBP 15M each if memory serves correctly (which at the time was about what was being paid for the much less capable Harrier GR5).
- variable geometry wings
- extended fuselage
- relocated undercarriage
- underwing hardpoints
- cheek mounted intakes
- new radar for use with Sparrow / Skyflash
- originally it was going to be single seat - later idea was 2-seat a la T5
A Sea Lightning was also proposed.
Later the Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG) was originally going to have an AD role for the RAF. It switched to strike / attack - at this point to supplement the F-111K - after the decision to buy F-4K was made
Personally I would much rather have seen F-4E (twice as many compared to Phantom FG1/FGR2 for the same money) - Buccaneer 2* instead of Tornado GR1 - and F-15E when it was offered around 1989/1990 for GBP 15M each if memory serves correctly (which at the time was about what was being paid for the much less capable Harrier GR5).
Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 2nd Nov 2017 at 21:47.
When the Wildenrath Wing got the Phantom FGR2 in 1977/78 (taking over from the Gutersloh Wing with the Lightning F2A), it was indeed top dog in the AD world in 2ATAF. Apart from the Luftwaffe with the F-4F, everyone else still had the F-104G with just a couple of Sidewinders and an M-61 20mm cannon mounted internally.
With the best radar, Skyflash, RWR, better hardened facilities, better NBC IPE, and crews drilled to perfection, the Wildenrath Wing was the first unit to get top ratings across the board in its' first TACEVAL on type.
In 4ATAF, 36 TFW at Bitburg was only just getting the F-15A and the rest of USAFE still had F-4Es and F-4Ds.
Great times !
Circa 1977/78 - one with / one without RWR mod on top of fin.
With the best radar, Skyflash, RWR, better hardened facilities, better NBC IPE, and crews drilled to perfection, the Wildenrath Wing was the first unit to get top ratings across the board in its' first TACEVAL on type.
In 4ATAF, 36 TFW at Bitburg was only just getting the F-15A and the rest of USAFE still had F-4Es and F-4Ds.
Great times !
Circa 1977/78 - one with / one without RWR mod on top of fin.
Did a bit of digging to answer my own question and the answer seems to have been 'nothing' - there were no ORs or development plans for new AD fighters from 1957 to mid 70s.
My receiver experience on the F-4 against a Victor would normally be "I see you about to join, so I'll turn through the sun....".
Orac -
Would you like your gallons in Imperial, US or Metric ?
Is that Short, Long or Tonnes ?
I suppose the only really good thing about AAR is the Receiver doesn't have to sign for it in a Legal Document. Or will Tankers accept contactless payment these days ? ...
.......... LFH
..................
Delivered in gallons,
loaded in tons
I suppose the only really good thing about AAR is the Receiver doesn't have to sign for it in a Legal Document. Or will Tankers accept contactless payment these days ? ...
.......... LFH..................