Phantom Weapon Load
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 857
Likes: 26
From: Dublin
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 908
Likes: 149
From: Scotland
Fascinating stuff. Just one question. Did we not have our own 'Special weapons' by the early 70's (was thinking Red Beard/ WE177 that would probably pair with a Phantom). Didn't the Buccaneer carry Red Beard prior to WE177 in the nuclear strike role in the 70's/80's?
Cheers TO
Cheers TO
PS Would the US allow a Non US controlled nuclear weapon on a US built aircraft?
Last edited by Timelord; 22nd August 2019 at 16:43.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 764
Likes: 3
From: UK
The aircraft became heavier as the years went by due to modifications, especially the FG1. We flew a trial to increase the max take-off weight from 58000lbs to 60000 lbs in ‘D’ fit (3 tanks) plus 4 Skyflash, 4 AIM9 and 4 1000 lb bombs. But that was not a war load in the late ‘80s when we did this. It was just a means of achieving the desired mass.
Edit: I have thought a bit more about this fit. We definitely had the 3 tanks and 4 x 1000 lb bombs but probably did not have the missiles, and if we did just the Skyflash. My logbook doesn't state the actual load so this is just from memory.
Edit: I have thought a bit more about this fit. We definitely had the 3 tanks and 4 x 1000 lb bombs but probably did not have the missiles, and if we did just the Skyflash. My logbook doesn't state the actual load so this is just from memory.
Last edited by LOMCEVAK; 26th August 2019 at 09:06.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,110
Likes: 291
From: Nevada, USA
The US B43 special weapons provided under the dual key US/UK Project E dual-key arrangement for RAFG Phantom FGR2s had previously been used by the RAFG Canberra B(I)8s up until June 1972 until there were replaced by the Buccaneer with WE177.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 130
From: Here
I think that the F4 in the ground attack and strike ( nuclear) role was only ever “interim” awaiting the arrival of the Jaguar +WE177 after which the F4 s all went air defence. That being the case it would not have been worth the considerable effort of integrating WE177 and the US kindly provided their weapons under, I presume, the same dual key procedures as the Canberras which preceded the F4s.
PS Would the US allow a Non US controlled nuclear weapon on a US built aircraft?
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 55
From: virginia, USA
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 272
Likes: 1
From: adelaide australia
I remember reading a paperback some years back I believe was called "Phantom over Vietnam"? Anyway, it was written by a Marine F-4 pilot about his experiences and he mentioned a configuration he called "Super Bomber". You took one F-4, put a MER on the centerline and both outer pylons, a TER on both inner pylons, loaded them all up with MK82 slicks for a total of 24 bombs, and prayed she'd get off the ground! Supposedly only REALLY experienced pilots were allowed to fly the airplane configured like that cuz they were an absolute beast to fly.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
A Wessex or Sea King?
I pray it was a teeny weeny very extremely low yield device....as otherwise the Pilot and Crew would have to be wearing white head bands as they committed ritual suicide!
I pray it was a teeny weeny very extremely low yield device....as otherwise the Pilot and Crew would have to be wearing white head bands as they committed ritual suicide!
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 130
From: Here
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 908
Likes: 149
From: Scotland
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 546
Likes: 2
From: BOQ
Buccaneer was 63,000LB if memory serves me right.
Re: USMC F-4 (3MERs, 2 TERs config).......A manual bomber in an F-4 with 24 MK-82s actually had a chance of hitting something for a change.
(The USAF in VN had a 3 or 5 SUU-23 config on some F-4Ds.
Now that's a gunfighter.)
Last edited by OK465; 24th August 2019 at 14:53.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 546
Likes: 2
From: BOQ
The jury-rigged wiring for that 5 SUU config was left somewhat less than fully documented and mysterious. We got one of those aircraft handed down to the Reserves. I believe the wing guns went thru the DCU wiring for the nuke.
I fired the center-line SUU-23 on the range one day and a LAU-88 w TGM from an inboard station jettisoned at the same time. First thing I asked was, "How many hits?" primarily to substantiate for the record that I had only the CL gun selected and correctly so. Range officer said "45 hits......plus one skip hit".
(I should clarify the F-105 comment. It only maxed out around 54,000 lbs.....but handled like it weighed 70,000)
I fired the center-line SUU-23 on the range one day and a LAU-88 w TGM from an inboard station jettisoned at the same time. First thing I asked was, "How many hits?" primarily to substantiate for the record that I had only the CL gun selected and correctly so. Range officer said "45 hits......plus one skip hit".
(I should clarify the F-105 comment. It only maxed out around 54,000 lbs.....but handled like it weighed 70,000)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,537
Likes: 295
From: The Alps
One of the underwing tanks could be the modified version used to carry photoflash for night time operations. Not sure how widespread that was, but you can see it on this pic of XV406 (which was the Recce trials aircraft, so carries the pod and modified tank in spite of being with 111 at the time)
Cheers
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,156
Likes: 1
From: Leicestershire, England
-RP